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.
Then we should ban perfumes/colonge, smoke of any kind (no more grilling at the park), people with poor hygiene or who pass gas in public. We also will need to ban cleaning products used in various environments, food/drink that smells offensive to some. The list goes on and on... since your concept of liberty is to never encounter such (as opposed to having the freedom to avoid/remove yourself from it), then this means we will have to ban many many things (if not everything).
This is the flaw in your argument.
Perfumes and colongne are not foul odors to the majority of people. These odors are meant to make a person smell more pleasant, which is why they are worn in the first place.
The odor of perfumes and colognes also do not contain toxic substances, so breathing them is not harmful to your health.
Laws are not created to deal with things that smell offensive to some ... they are created to deal with things that smell offensive to the vast majority, and cigarette smoking is a perfect example of this.
"Passing gas" is not an option for people like smoking. It is a bodily function which people can not control.
Cooking fumes are not a problem the majority of the time, and are rarely reported. But if enough people complained about a specific cooking situation, I'm certain the offender would be deemed a "public nuisance", and forced to stop.
Colognes and perfumes do not cover as large an area as smoke does. Smoking outdoors is different than in a confined space. If you want to argue about types of smoke, you might to stick with the same situations. Try to avoid apples to oranges comparisons.
It is different. Sorry if I smoke outside out of consideration? I think smoking inside is a weird thing to argue. I smoke outside and others don't smell it. It's a win win.
It is the same. Your premise
Quote:
I firmly believe that my liberties end at the tip of your nose and vice-versa.
Now you are putting various conditions, aka subjectively establishing what is acceptable and what is not. Others may disagree with their experiences.
Personally, I just miss -- terribly -- the era as a whole before Nannyism.
I don't care if it's smoking policy, salt/trans fat legislation, not hiring the obese, whatever....we're giving up our rights in order to legislate and subtly dictate personal behavior, period. After each new ban or restriction is passed, we find a new behavior that we don't like, and we go after it with pitchforks and torches.
The 'annoyed' feel satisfied...until the mob comes after them.
The result has been the creation of a country filled with arrogant, self-righteous whiners who feel that anything they don't like is automatically subject to restriction, taxation, or villification at their whim and pleasure.
And now almost no one has any semblance of tolerance of anything they find the least bit displeasing.
What few people who rally behind these bans and restrictions realize is that the push for them is usually a lot of incentive in the way of cash.
Your intolerance and whining = Someone raking it in (and laughing at the unrest and anger the legislation caused)
No kidding! I agree with everything you said. Way too many whiners, and busy bodies in this world today. We all have to deal with annoyances in our daily life, be it someone yacking it up on their cell phone in the middle of dinner, or a loud exhaust, or loud car stereo, someone cutting you off in traffic, and on and on and on. It sucks, but that's life! Personally I choose to mind my own business.
You failed to respond to my mention of your first post of this information:
You imply that my objection is a subjective one, it is not. The evidence of poor application of science in their studies is not an opinion, it is a well documented fact. This has even been taken to court to show this and was noted by another poster specifically.
You are demanding appeals to authority in the face of conflicting evidence.
So, when the science fails to support your position, you will use common sense? How convenient for you. You aren't even using common sense, as if you were, you would consider the issue of PEL/TLV concerning exposure in relation to what you encounter in other sources daily. What you are doing is clinging to your bias. You thought that by simply cutting and pasting links to political activist agencies would be plenty, that most would nod like sheep accepting the authority. You didn't expect that some people actually think and look deeper into the issues and so now you are left with fallacious reasoning to defend your position.
Taking your ball and going home ehh? You don't care if the science is wrong, you don't care if the common sense of the issue doesn't support you, you are just going to believe what you want and continue to demand that laws be put into place according to that desire.
You are confirming the argument of people here concerning this issue and that is the fact that this issue was never about health, never about infringement of your rights, it was simply about using government and mob mentality to dictate individual self interests to others.
It is a lose/lose for you. Either eventually people will catch on to fraud of your position or you will get your way leading to the removal of your rights eventually. That is ok though, I mean, at least you can say you got your way for a while? /boggle
Thanks for your information, however I will stick to the government agencies findings.
There have been enough studies reported over many years by research centers, hospitals, etc. which indicate that second-hand smoke is dangerous to your health, so I don't feel any need to be convinced otherwise.
I also don't have this overwhelming concern about the loss of my civil liberties, like some here have.
To me, second-hand smoke has been a serious health issue which existed for many years, and it needed to be dealt with.
Perfumes and colongne are not foul odors to the majority of people.
So everyone loves the smell of perfumes and colognes? What about many who are allergic to them? You make a rather hasty assumption though, not everyone likes the smell of everything the same and if you had been paying attention to these discussions, you would see complaints about this. Lastly, when did "majority of people" become a contingency in establishing the infringement of liberty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
These odors are meant to make a person smell more pleasant, which is why they are worn in the first place.
Faulty reasoning. Again, you make the assumption that everyone finds the smell of all of them pleasant. You also do not account for the issue of those who pour it on heavily. There was one woman at my work who wore so much that it made everyone sick to their stomach each time they passed by them. You seem to be "excusing" these situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
The odor of perfumes and colognes also do not contain toxic substances, so breathing them is not harmful to your health.
Really? You seemed to have forgotten our previous discussion concerning PEL/TLV. What is the base chemicals in them? What if I placed you into a 10x10x10 room with no ventilation and gassed the room with it until it reached the PEL/TLV? Oh wait... you say that isn't practical or reasonable? Well, might I suggest going back and looking at my previous comments to your chemicals listed in SHS and the PEL/TLV? IF you are going to accept the sloppy science of the EPA/NCI, then you have to be consistent.
Also, a simple Google search on the topic will result in plenty of studies and claims concerning perfumes and colognes. What is your position on that? We should ban them right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Laws are not created to deal with things that smell offensive to some ... they are created to deal with things that smell offensive to the vast majority, and cigarette smoking is a perfect example of this.
So, majority rule? Odd, I thought our laws were designed to protect and respect the liberties of the individual? You make a case for a pure democracy, might makes right (hint: something we are not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
"Passing gas" is not an option for people like smoking. It is a bodily function which people can not control.
What is it comprised of?
Lets see... hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. No harmful chemicals there. Oh wait...
So why do we not rush to the emergency room when someone passes gas near another? Could it be... the levels of it that we experience? You know, the PEL/TLV? Nah... they are dangerous chemicals and using your version of common sense, that means it is harmful to others. /boggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Cooking fumes are not a problem the majority of the time, and are rarely reported. But if enough people complained about a specific cooking situation, I'm certain the offender would be deemed a "public nuisance", and forced to stop.
Cooking smoke contains many harmful chemicals, deadly even. why just put yourself in a closed room and pump up the levels of it and it will eventually kill you. So, holding to your logical thought process, no amount of exposure is safe exposure and simply coming into brief contact, however slight is a danger and infringement on another. It should be banned by your own argument.
So far, you have conflicted with your argument multiple times. This is what happens when your premise is invalid. This is why you aren't making an argument of any worth, but demanding others submit to your individual preferences.
It is ok, tyrants rarely realize they are being tyrannical. They have convinced themselves that their way is the best way for all!
Thanks for your information, however I will stick to the government agencies findings.
There have been enough studies reported over many years by research centers, hospitals, etc. which indicate that second-hand smoke is dangerous to your health, so I don't feel any need to be convinced otherwise.
I also don't have this overwhelming concern about the loss of my civil liberties, like some here have.
To me, second-hand smoke has been a serious health issue which existed for many years, and it needed to be dealt with.
Didn't realize we were arguing subjective "beliefs". I thought we were talking about the science, the facts of the issue.
If I would have known you didn't care about that and were just demanding everyone appeal to your demands, I would have dismissed you as irrelevant. I will do so now, thank you.
If you watch films that predate the 90's, you can see that smoking was virtually allowed anyplace in America: planes, restaurants, bars, public buildings, offices, etc. Now this is almost impossible to find, except for some particular places. I think smoking gives men that macho attiude and makes women sexy. What do you think? If America doesn't have socialized healthcare, why should the Government (stateside, county, local) prevent its citziens to smoke wherever they want?
Do you miss the era before the smoking bans?
Hell no!!! And I refuse to kiss or date a man that smokes cigarettes. Cigarettes are stinky and the smoke causes health issues. Emphysema, cancers... no thank you!!
Yes, America is about freedoms, but not if they infringe on another person's personal space.
If you want to smoke, keep it on your own property. And if you need medical services to remove lung cancer, then pay for it out of your own pocket.
Hell no!!! And I refuse to kiss or date a man that smokes cigarettes. Cigarettes are stinky and the smoke causes health issues. Emphysema, cancers... no thank you!!
Yes, America is about freedoms, but not if they infringe on another person's personal space.
If you want to smoke, keep it on your own property. And if you need medical services to remove lung cancer, then pay for it out of your own pocket.
As always, this issue comes up and it is beaten down with logical and factual arguments only to end up in a list of subjective rationalized rebuttals to which prove the point of the logical arguments.
The National Cancer Institute is an "anti-smoking group" ?
That's a new one to me.
Really? A new one? So, all along you thought they were Pro-Tobacco? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
And as far as your concern with statistics, I personally prefer to err on the side which favors the ban.
I do not want to find out the "hard way" that they were RIGHT all along.
How about you?
Well at least you're honest ... you prefer whatever favors bans, instead of the truth. Which pretty much means you'd rather be part of the group of dishonest zealots trying to destroy liberty in America based on deliberately falsified information crafted for that express purpose.
I think it's safe to assume that most intelligent "thinking" people simply want the truth, and automatically reject the idea of being manipulated with deliberate lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Would you want to chance that your own children or grand-children develop cancer as a result of second-hand smoke simply because you were so hung up on the statistical methods used, that you refused to accept them?
Evidence is evidence ... it either supports a particular conclusion or it doesn't. But when evidence is DELIBERATELY falsified to promote a certain conclusion, you can rest assured that there is "no chance" that the "conclusion" is accurate or true. This is a fundamental construct of intelligence that human beings should have a fair grasp of by the age of 10.
So I'd prefer my children and grand children to grow up in a society that is not dominated by lies, and masses of adult morons who's behavior is governed by their perpetual 7 year old mentality.
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.
Way too many whiners, and busy bodies in this world today. We all have to deal with annoyances in our daily life, be it someone yacking it up on their cell phone in the middle of dinner, or a loud exhaust, or loud car stereo, someone cutting you off in traffic, and on and on and on. It sucks, but that's life! Personally I choose to mind my own business.
Do you miss the era before the smoking bans?
