U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [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)
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 29,611,084 times
Reputation: 7667

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
For criminal liability in Texas, the traditional tort definitions of "assault" and "battery" are rolled into just assault.

And the contact can be harmful and consent still a defense, as long as it wasn't "serious" harm.
when I say harmful I mean serious harm, not just a slap on the cheek. I mean cancer type of harm
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:26 PM
 
8,648 posts, read 15,945,817 times
Reputation: 4592
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
good luck, my grandad has been trying for 40 years
Have him look at Chantix....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 13,823,214 times
Reputation: 2450
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
when I say harmful I mean serious harm, not just a slap on the cheek. I mean cancer type of harm

Oh, like secondhand smoke harm.

Gotcha.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,816 posts, read 40,050,171 times
Reputation: 24358
getmeoutofhere, let's ban alcohol, then, shall we? (Oh, wait, that's been tried.) And cars. And ice cream. And meat. And tofu. And everything that might possibly cause harm to someone, sometime, or that they might possibly find pleasure in.

Think then you'll live forever?

My MIL chainsmoked for 50 years that we know of. Literally before she got out of bed in the morning until the last thing before bed at night. She had surgery for something unrelated in her later years, and the doctors assured her that they knew for a fact that when they got in there, her lungs would be black and they might have to just go ahead and take some of them out, as well. Because everybody KNOWS that cigarette smoke, even second-hand smoke, causes lung cancer. After the surgery, they had to acknowledge to her that when they got in, she had lovely, pretty, pink, healthy lungs. Blew their little minds, because, well, everybody KNOWS that it is inevitable that exposure to cigarette smoke causes all those things.

Except it didn't. Again, there's something going on here that we don't understand, and the sooner we acknowledge that the more likely we are someday to understand it. But not as long as we insist that we KNOW what the problem is and that it just HAS to be cigarette smoking.

That is, however, a big digression from the topic of this thread, which is civil liberties and just how far some folks are willing to go to (a) impose their will on others while thinking that it won't ever happen to them and (b) pretend that they're never going to die if they just make everyone else do what is clearly (to them) The Right Thing To Do.

Big reminder: this is Texas. We're not wusses, and we are competent, as adults, to make our own decisions about such things. Including not whining and throwing hissy fits because somewhere, somebody is enjoying something we don't approve of, and even if we don't go into the place where they're doing it, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO AND THEY SHOULD JUST STOP IT BECAUSE WE MIGHT SOMEDAY WANT TO GO THERE!

Heck, I wouldn't accept that behavior from my own children beyond the age of about three, why on earth should we accept it from purported adults?

Sheesh. And some folks complain about religion in Texas, without even seeing that they're worshiping at the altar of the fear du jour.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 29,611,084 times
Reputation: 7667
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
getmeoutofhere, let's ban alcohol, then, shall we? (Oh, wait, that's been tried.) And cars. And ice cream. And meat. And tofu. And everything that might possibly cause harm to someone, sometime, or that they might possibly find pleasure in.

Think then you'll live forever?
non of those things are inherently dangerous by themselves.

It is in combination with other elements that are dangerous.

but you can just sit there smoking and not do anything else and be endangering other people's lives.

if you drink alcohol while just seating there you are not endangering other people. same with icecream, meat tofu etc.

why must your examples be so off the scales?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:55 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,904,246 times
Reputation: 5781
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
That's not entirely true, and is a misreading of the TPC.
No, what is a misreading is that on the part of you and HT in suggesting an assault is commited to begin with...as involves it being commited when one enters a place where they know aforehand, smoking is allowed.

To deliberately blow smoke into someones face is an assault. It would be that way, public OR private. On the other hand, there is no assault commited when the person enters an arena where smoking is permitted and they know this aforehand. Thus, they have no grounds upon which to charge another person with assault if other people were simply smoking. In effect, the "consent" defense would stand...even presuming anyone were so silly as to charge "assault" at all!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 13,823,214 times
Reputation: 2450
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
getmeoutofhere, let's ban alcohol, then, shall we? (Oh, wait, that's been tried.) And cars. And ice cream. And meat. And tofu. And everything that might possibly cause harm to someone, sometime, or that they might possibly find pleasure in.

Think then you'll live forever?
What a ridiculous argument. None of those things harm other people by their mere existence.

Secondhand smoke hurts everyone around, not just the person choosing to indulge in smoking.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
My MIL chainsmoked for 50 years that we know of. Literally before she got out of bed in the morning until the last thing before bed at night. She had surgery for something unrelated in her later years, and the doctors assured her that they knew for a fact that when they got in there, her lungs would be black and they might have to just go ahead and take some of them out, as well. Because everybody KNOWS that cigarette smoke, even second-hand smoke, causes lung cancer. After the surgery, they had to acknowledge to her that when they got in, she had lovely, pretty, pink, healthy lungs. Blew their little minds, because, well, everybody KNOWS that it is inevitable that exposure to cigarette smoke causes all those things.

Except it didn't. Again, there's something going on here that we don't understand, and the sooner we acknowledge that the more likely we are someday to understand it. But not as long as we insist that we KNOW what the problem is and that it just HAS to be cigarette smoking.
Ah, so based off your statistical sample of one person you can conclusively say that all the medical research of the past 30 years is wrong.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
That is, however, a big digression from the topic of this thread, which is civil liberties and just how far some folks are willing to go to (a) impose their will on others while thinking that it won't ever happen to them and (b) pretend that they're never going to die if they just make everyone else do what is clearly (to them) The Right Thing To Do.
Public health trumps civil liberties. Always has.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Big reminder: this is Texas. We're not wusses, and we are competent, as adults, to make our own decisions about such things. Including not whining and throwing hissy fits because somewhere, somebody is enjoying something we don't approve of, and even if we don't go into the place where they're doing it, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO AND THEY SHOULD JUST STOP IT BECAUSE WE MIGHT SOMEDAY WANT TO GO THERE!
Typical Texan arrogance. Trying to shoehorn the state into something completely unrelated. News flash...it doesn't matter if this is Texas, Ohio, or Florida...secondhand smoke kills people everywhere.

This isn't about banning something that people disapprove of. Texas and it's religion-run government already do that pretty well.

Smoking hurts not only the person who does it, but everyone around. You get to make choices that affect your body, but you don't get to harm everyone else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Sheesh. And some folks complain about religion in Texas, without even seeing that they're worshiping at the altar of the fear du jour.

So are we back to 30 years of medical science is nothing but a scare tactic? Good argument.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 04:02 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,904,246 times
Reputation: 5781
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
non of those things are inherently dangerous by themselves.

It is in combination with other elements that are dangerous.

but you can just sit there smoking and not do anything else and be endangering other people's lives.

if you drink alcohol while just seating there you are not endangering other people. same with icecream, meat tofu etc.

why must your examples be so off the scales?
Then don't go into these dangerous places, HtLove.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 13,823,214 times
Reputation: 2450
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
No, what is a misreading is that on the part of you and HT in suggesting an assault is commited to begin with...as involves it being commited when one enters a place where they know aforehand, smoking is allowed.

To deliberately blow smoke into someones face is an assault. It would be that way, public OR private. On the other hand, there is no assault commited when the person enters an arena where smoking is permitted and they know this aforehand. Thus, they have no grounds upon which to charge another person with assault if other people were simply smoking. In effect, the "consent" defense would stand...even presuming anyone were so silly as to charge "assault" at all!

Actually, other states have already upheld assault charges for secondhand smoke.

I don't believe it's been challenged yet in Texas, but it's coming.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 04:06 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,904,246 times
Reputation: 5781
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
What a ridiculous argument. None of those things harm other people by their mere existence.

Secondhand smoke hurts everyone around, not just the person choosing to indulge in smoking.

Ah, so based off your statistical sample of one person you can conclusively say that all the medical research of the past 30 years is wrong.

Public health trumps civil liberties. Always has.

Typical Texan arrogance. Trying to shoehorn the state into something completely unrelated. News flash...it doesn't matter if this is Texas, Ohio, or Florida...secondhand smoke kills people everywhere.

This isn't about banning something that people disapprove of. Texas and it's religion-run government already do that pretty well.

Smoking hurts not only the person who does it, but everyone around. You get to make choices that affect your body, but you don't get to harm everyone else.

So are we back to 30 years of medical science is nothing but a scare tactic? Good argument.
Then don't go into these places, GMOH.

Typical Texas Arrogance? Now why did I exepect THAT one to come up too? *checks timer again* THL...do you have your watch on as well...?
Rate this post positively 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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Texas
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 AM.

© 2005-2021, 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