State-wide smoking ban (HB 670/SB 355) (Howe: for sale, live in, health)

[TexasHorseLady]

More appropriate for this topic, because it speaks directly to what this country was founded on:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

[ObamaRama]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

More appropriate for this topic, because it speaks directly to what this country was founded on:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

No one has the Right to smoke...

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by ObamaRama

No one has the Right to smoke...

that is what she keeps failing to understand.

Typical misunderstanding of our laws and Constitution.

[TexasHorseLady]

Smoking might fall under the pursuit of happiness for some.

The point is, the laws must be made in such a way as to keep in mind the rights of the minority as well as the majority. Otherwise, we have oppression.

Now, it's more than clear that some of you are right on board with oppression of anyone who doesn't agree with you. That is, in fact, why the founding fathers were so careful about that - because they knew, from experience (it was, after all, part of what they were fighting against), that there are people who are more than happy to oppress anyone who isn't just like them, and that the majority can consist of a lynch mob (after all, everyone in the lynch mob agrees that it's the right thing to do and that person is wrong, wrong, WRONG, correct?). It's perhaps one of the more important things that we must guard again, far more dangerous to our country than any terrorist could ever think of being (except perhaps those terrorists who figured out that if they could just get us scared enough we'd do their job for them by destroying our own way of life by trying to "protect" it).

Again, if a private businessman chooses to allow smoking in his own business, and you don't like to be exposed to second-hand smoke, if your true concern is for yourself and not control of what others do, your action is clear. And it is NOT running to your legislator(nanny) to tattle and get a law passed so that you don't have to take personal responsibility.

It is to simply not patronize that business.

Can anyone tell me why that is so very difficult? Why is it so very difficult for anyone who is NOT happy with that solution to just own up that it isn't that they are concerned for their own health but that they want everyone else to be controlled by a nanny state? Because it really is absurdly obvious that that is the case - pretending it's not when there's this big flashing red sign on your forehead stating that it is isn't all that convincing.

Again, I don't smoke. But I do value my liberty, and those who are supporting these kinds of nanny laws are not going to stop with smokers, they're already moving on to the food we eat - how much more intimate a decision can be made for us than that?

[ObamaRama]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Smoking might fall under the pursuit of happiness for some.

The point is, the laws must be made in such a way as to keep in mind the rights of the minority as well as the majority. Otherwise, we have oppression.

Now, it's more than clear that some of you are right on board with oppression of anyone who doesn't agree with you. That is, in fact, why the founding fathers were so careful about that - because they knew, from experience (it was, after all, part of what they were fighting against), that there are people who are more than happy to oppress anyone who isn't just like them, and that the majority can consist of a lynch mob (after all, everyone in the lynch mob agrees that it's the right thing to do and that person is wrong, wrong, WRONG, correct?). It's perhaps one of the more important things that we must guard again, far more dangerous to our country than any terrorist could ever think of being (except perhaps those terrorists who figured out that if they could just get us scared enough we'd do their job for them by destroying our own way of life by trying to "protect" it).

Again, if a private businessman chooses to allow smoking in his own business, and you don't like to be exposed to second-hand smoke, if your true concern is for yourself and not control of what others do, your action is clear. And it is NOT running to your legislator(nanny) to tattle and get a law passed so that you don't have to take personal responsibility.

It is to simply not patronize that business.

Can anyone tell me why that is so very difficult? Why is it so very difficult for anyone who is NOT happy with that solution to just own up that it isn't that they are concerned for their own health but that they want everyone else to be controlled by a nanny state? Because it really is absurdly obvious that that is the case - pretending it's not when there's this big flashing red sign on your forehead stating that it is isn't all that convincing.

Again, I don't smoke. But I do value my liberty, and those who are supporting these kinds of nanny laws are not going to stop with smokers, they're already moving on to the food we eat - how much more intimate a decision can be made for us than that?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I also think you smoke.

[TexasHorseLady]

Bwaahaaahaaa!!! Okay, I'll admit it, I smoked once. For a month, during college, when it was exam time and I was living with 3 chain smokers so I figured if there was ever a good time to try it out, that was the time. (No one was "sensitive" to smoke back then, by the way, or thought it smelled bad, or went into coughing fits if they got the faintest whiff of cigarette smoke from another apartment or across the room - in fact, it was considered "cool" to do so, and I seriously doubt that human physiology has changed that much.)

I quickly discovered that not only could I not taste food as well as I'd been able to before, but I got five large mouth ulcers that sent me to the student medical center for treatment. So I stopped. Didn't ever occur to me, though, to demand that my roommates or everyone else I knew that smoked stop doing so because of my personal problem, though. They would have thought I was crazy (or at the very least a royal pain in the patootie).

Haven't smoked since That was in December 1969.

So, yes, I guess you could call me a smoker if you really, really, really wanted to and couldn't cope with the honesty of acknowledging that you're someone who wants to impose their will on others.

Again, if someone decides that they wish to allow smoking in their private business and marks the door to so indicate, and you don't wish to be exposed to cigarette smoke and no one forces you to enter that business, how is it that they're imposing on you in any way, shape or form? Can you give a rational explanation of how this is the case, especially to the extent that it must be legislated out of existence?

Nothing about the perils of smoking, now. Let's leave that red herring to the side for a moment, we can always return to it later if you get too nervous without it.

Just address the simple question above.

[ObamaRama]

Smoking is no longer considered socially acceptable. Many human social
behaviors have changed throughtout the years. Once again no one has
the RIGHT to smoke. Society tells us what is permissible and smoking is not.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Smoking might fall under the pursuit of happiness for some.

misinterpretation of the law again. You have a right to pursue happiness, no right to catch it

The point is, the laws must be made in such a way as to keep in mind the rights of the minority as well as the majority. Otherwise, we have oppression.

there is no oppression in looking after the health of others. Remember, all minority cases deal with a RIGHT of the few being hindered by the many.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

misinterpretation of the law again. You have a right to pursue happiness, no right to catch it

there is no oppression in looking after the health of others. Remember, all minority cases deal with a RIGHT of the few being hindered by the many.

HtownLove, I, and other adults, are more than qualified to make decisions about our own personal health without needing you to nanny us. That's pretty much the entire point, that you don't get to make those decisions for other adults. I'm pretty sure no one who smokes, no one who is adult enough to own a business, asked you to look after their health. I know I certainly didn't; if I, as a nonsmoker, choose to enter an establishment that allows smoking, I do so in the full knowledge that I am taking responsibility for my OWN health, same as if I choose NOT to enter said establishment, and that is as it should be.

You are attempting to infantilize anyone who doesn't agree with you, and attempting to do it with nanny legislation, at that. Or, you are attempting to get laws passed because you have neither the self-control nor the intelligence to make such decisions yourself and fear that without such laws you will feel compelled to enter smoking establishments so you want laws passed to protect you from having to take that responsibility.

In either case, SHAME ON YOU!

Try treating adults as adults, and try taking responsibility for your own decisions (in this case, making the decision not to enter a smoking establishment) rather than foisting them off on others through legislation.

Again, I ask the question (did you think it wasn't obvious that it has yet to be answered?):

If someone decides that they wish to allow smoking in their private business and marks the door to so indicate, and you don't wish to be exposed to cigarette smoke and no one forces you to enter that business, how is it that they're imposing on you in any way, shape or form?

I await a direct answer to this question. It should be amusing.

[DerekTant]

"Smoking is a matter of personal freedom & personal responsibility" VS "Smoking is rude & socially unacceptable, so let's make it illegal."

Which makes more sense?