Health Nazis and Outdoor Smoking Ban

[Immanuel]

This is getting a bit too personal for me... my dad died on June 12th of last year, of lung cancer. He was a life long smoker well since he was a young teen anyway. In fact, both my parents have smoked all my life.

Yet, I still get angry when liberals decide it is perfectly acceptable to take the rights of smokers away from them. Just one more governmental intrusion into our lives. Today it is smokers... tomorrow it will be people who eat fast food (we're getting a little too close to me now) and the day after it will be Ice Cream!!! Now just stop right there you hit where it hurts.

Immie

Sorry to hear about your dad. Like I said before, I would not take the rights of smokers away from them. However, you can't call it governmental intrusion in certain situations.

I feel you should have a right to smoke as long as you're not endangering others by doing so. I definitely feel that private businesses should have the right to let their customers smoke and that you should be able to smoke in the privacy of your own home.

I'm making the same argument here that I would about people who drink and drive. People who drink, that's fine. People who drive, that's fine. However, when anyone gets behind the wheel of a vehicle that is enough to be over the legal limit, you are not only now endangering yourself but the other drivers on the road and anyone in your way.

Which is why the Libertarian argument would be things like DUI should stay illegal. Some may say, "well, it's government intrusion that the government is trying to dictate how I drive." When in reality, the government has a responsibility to to make such laws in order to protect others. May it be local, state, or federal.

The difference and it may be small to you but not to me is the risk of injuring other people. DUI is a serious risk and innocent people get killed every day by drunk drivers, but second hand smoke is a lot more debatable. There are cancer causing agents every where we turn. Who is to say that someone who dies of cancer even though they did not smoke, did not get cancer from something else in the atmosphere?

Definitely, I would chose non-smoking to smoking, but I would prefer not to infringe on other people's pleasures if I need not.

And most smokers are decent people who if you ask them not to blow smoke in your face they will respect you as long as you are not rude when you do it.

Immie

 

[Dis]

DAMN!

I step away for a little suppah...and I come back and what could be an interesting discussion, has spiraled into the depths of immaturity.

"You're a libtard!"

"No I'm not!"

YAY USMB!!!

Oh, YOU'RE one to talk about spiraling into idiocy Mr. I Post Threads Just To See How Many Times I Can See My Name On One Page...

 

[Modbert]

*yawn*

Want to try again, strwamanbert?

Do tell me how I'm a Progressive Gunny, and which positions of mine make me specifically a progressive.

Is it my pro-death penalty views? Or is my pro-gun views? Or maybe my Pro Net Neutrality views? Or maybe my Anti War on Drugs views?

Or maybe my Pro Nuclear Power Plants view? No? Maybe it's my idea to take the government out of the equation of marriage completely and make all current legal civil unions to be exactly that? Maybe it's my Anti-Patriot Act and FISA views? My Pro-Marijuana views? Or maybe my views about there needing to be a discussion on Global Warming and what can be done about it without costing trillions of dollars and millions of jobs?

Is it my Pro education vouchers and charter school views?

I mean, maybe I'm just too confused due to my age. Show me the light Gunny!

 

[xotoxi]

To an extent, I am playing devil's advocate if you look at the last long post I just made.

I made the smokers staying home comment in response to Gunny saying the nonsmokers should stay home. Yet nobody called him out about it. That's why I said that in response.

Just because we have freedoms in this country does not give us the right to violate the freedoms and rights of others.

I know people who were both family and non-family that have died due to smoking, nobody is going to sit here and tell me that it doesn't play a role.

But at the same time, I'm not about to say that people don't have a right to smoke. However, people should have no right to endanger others.

This is getting a bit too personal for me... my dad died on June 12th of last year, of lung cancer. He was a life long smoker well since he was a young teen anyway. In fact, both my parents have smoked all my life.

Yet, I still get angry when liberals decide it is perfectly acceptable to take the rights of smokers away from them. Just one more governmental intrusion into our lives. Today it is smokers... tomorrow it will be people who eat fast food (we're getting a little too close to me now) and the day after it will be Ice Cream!!! Now just stop right there you hit where it hurts.

Immie

Ice cream? Just wait til they ban cheesecake, and steak. Then we're all fucked.

It will really suck if they ban public fucking in the state parks!

Now that would suck!

 

[Modbert]

The difference and it may be small to you but not to me is the risk of injuring other people. DUI is a serious risk and innocent people get killed every day by drunk drivers, but second hand smoke is a lot more debatable. There are cancer causing agents every where we turn. Who is to say that someone who dies of cancer even though they did not smoke, did not get cancer from something else in the atmosphere?

Definitely, I would chose non-smoking to smoking, but I would prefer not to infringe on other people's pleasures if I need not.

And most smokers are decent people who if you ask them not to blow smoke in your face they will respect you as long as you are not rude when you do it.

Immie

And I'm sure most drinkers are decent people who will not drink and drive over the legal limit. But it's that small chronic offenders who commit the majority of crimes which is why such laws are needed.

The secondhand smoke issue is more debatable, however, it's been proven by so many different legitimate and credible institutions that it exists.

I'd rather not infringe on other people's pleasures to smoke in public either. However, I'd rather not they infringe on other people's pleasure to breath the air without inhaling cigarette smoke which has over 50 different cancers.

 

[Immanuel]

The difference and it may be small to you but not to me is the risk of injuring other people. DUI is a serious risk and innocent people get killed every day by drunk drivers, but second hand smoke is a lot more debatable. There are cancer causing agents every where we turn. Who is to say that someone who dies of cancer even though they did not smoke, did not get cancer from something else in the atmosphere?

Definitely, I would chose non-smoking to smoking, but I would prefer not to infringe on other people's pleasures if I need not.

And most smokers are decent people who if you ask them not to blow smoke in your face they will respect you as long as you are not rude when you do it.

Immie

And I'm sure most drinkers are decent people who will not drink and drive over the legal limit. But it's that small chronic offenders who commit the majority of crimes which is why such laws are needed.

The secondhand smoke issue is more debatable, however, it's been proven by so many different legitimate and credible institutions that it exists.

I'd rather not infringe on other people's pleasures to smoke in public either. However, I'd rather not they infringe on other people's pleasure to breath the air without inhaling cigarette smoke which has over 50 different cancers.

You have to breathe and every breath you take can kill you even if you have never been within a mile of a smoker.

Immie

 

[Modbert]

You have to breathe and every breath you take can kill you even if you have never been within a mile of a smoker.

Immie

Except what you're doing is this:

A is bad, but B is worse. Because B is worse, A doesn't make that big of a difference. However, the fact that B may be worse in whatever way, doesn't make A good. And doesn't mean anything should be done about A.

 

[Immanuel]

You have to breathe and every breath you take can kill you even if you have never been within a mile of a smoker.

Immie

Except what you're doing is this:

A is bad, but B is worse. Because B is worse, A doesn't make that big of a difference. However, the fact that B may be worse in whatever way, doesn't make A good. And doesn't mean anything should be done about A.

No, what I am saying is that the risk of A is minimal and therefore not worth bigger and meaner government.

Immie

 

[Modbert]

No, what I am saying is that the risk of A is minimal and therefore not worth bigger and meaner government.

Immie

I wouldn't call the risk of A minimal. Like I said before, my views on this are clear. Private businesses and personal home/homes of others, etc are okay. However, the one place we're going to differ is the public places. Especially those that the government does upkeep for.

Do I think that private businesses should have laws that make them ban smoking? No.

We seem to be talking about two slightly different things here. Hope that cleared it up.

 

[blu]

Here's my problem: "The Democratic majority, however, argued that the ban was justified because of the health risks "

Banning outdoor smoking in stadiums where you are forced to sit next to someone is one thing...they can't prove this ban will help anything. It BS govenrnment control. Where does it end?

So that means that when I go to a California State Park, I just have to suck it up and deal with wheezing, shortness of breath, and itchy eyes because I am surrounded by smokers?

Wah. Stay home.

pretty lame post...

 

[blu]

Wah. Stay home.

Or the smokers could stay home and pollute their lungs and their lungs alone.

So long as you're allowed to parade around in a grass skirt with your hand up your boyfriends ass in public, right?

more and more deflection

 

[xotoxi]

Here's my problem: "The Democratic majority, however, argued that the ban was justified because of the health risks "

Banning outdoor smoking in stadiums where you are forced to sit next to someone is one thing...they can't prove this ban will help anything. It BS govenrnment control. Where does it end?

So that means that when I go to a California State Park, I just have to suck it up and deal with wheezing, shortness of breath, and itchy eyes because I am surrounded by smokers?

Wah. Stay home.

If you happened to be smoking near me and I asked if you'd mind extinguishing your cigarette because of my allergies, what would you say?

 

[Dis]

Or the smokers could stay home and pollute their lungs and their lungs alone.

So long as you're allowed to parade around in a grass skirt with your hand up your boyfriends ass in public, right?

more and more deflection

Must be your grass skirt someone's got their hand up.

 

[Dis]

So that means that when I go to a California State Park, I just have to suck it up and deal with wheezing, shortness of breath, and itchy eyes because I am surrounded by smokers?

Wah. Stay home.

If you happened to be smoking near me and I asked if you'd mind extinguishing your cigarette because of my allergies, what would you say?

If you have allergies to smoking, why would you walk closer to the smoke to have a conversation, rather than simply moving a bit farther away from what's bothering you, just like everyone else does?

 

[Dis]

So that means that when I go to a California State Park, I just have to suck it up and deal with wheezing, shortness of breath, and itchy eyes because I am surrounded by smokers?

Wah. Stay home.

pretty lame post...

That's your entire contribution to this thread? You should have spared us.

 

[Immanuel]

No, what I am saying is that the risk of A is minimal and therefore not worth bigger and meaner government.

Immie

I wouldn't call the risk of A minimal. Like I said before, my views on this are clear. Private businesses and personal home/homes of others, etc are okay. However, the one place we're going to differ is the public places. Especially those that the government does upkeep for.

Do I think that private businesses should have laws that make them ban smoking? No.

We seem to be talking about two slightly different things here. Hope that cleared it up.

This discussion started about outdoor parks and beaches.

Do you think smoking should be banned outdoors as well?

Immie

 

[Gunny]

Brought out the lying propaganda, did you Goebbels? You're such a leftwing fuckwit Mr Moderate it ain't funny.

Lying propaganda?

Might want to tell all the families of those who died due to complications because of secondhand smoke that's it all just a lie.

Definitive proof or shut the Hell up, bitchboy. You're such the fucking sheep.

 

[Gunny]

The ability to smoke during a movie has been banned. The ability to smoke while shopping has been banned. The ability to smoke while drinking is fast *becoming* banned. The ability to smoke in ones own apartment is fast *becoming* banned. Your little quip about not smoking in parks is likely going to become a fast reality at some point.. You see no problem with yet another freedom being stripped away?

Each year, some assclown has to go out of his/her way to make sure one more freedom gets knocked out of the ballpark.

It's horseshit.

As someone who has grown up with a parent who is a smoker, do not try and sit there bullshitting me that when someone is smoking around you that it is not a distraction. While you harp on about your rights and your freedoms, you seem to not care about violating the freedom of others with your inconsiderate behavior.

Do I think you should be able to smoke in your own apartment? Hell yes.

Do I think you should be able to smoke in bars? Hell yes.

Do I think you should be able to smoke in open areas where it does not disturb others? Hell yes.

Do I think you should be allowed to smoke in a movie theater where everyone is packed together? No.

While you and Gunny may think secondhand smoke statistics are propaganda, I'll be sitting here in reality. The fact is this:

Smoking kills, secondhand smoke kills.

Ever wonder why they call Marlboro cigarettes "cowboy killers"? Because three of the men who have appeared as the "Marlboro Man" have died of lung cancer. In fact, one man, Wayne McLaren testified in favor of anti-smoking legislation. You know what happened then? Philip Morris had the balls to say that he never appeared in an ad. Of course, Philip Morris was proven wrong.

In other words, you think you can dictate to others what you think is best. Fuckwit. Hell, I thought you were at least a bit smarter, even being delusional about being a so-called "moderate.".

 

[Gunny]

Your position is dictating choice. Tell me where THAT fits into the Constitution, formula-on-his-lips-bert.

As is your position. Tell me in the Constitution where you have a right to violate the rights of others?

Ask yourself the same question, not-so-original-bert.

 

[Gunny]

You're a progressive fuckwit. End of story.

Nice strawman. Did it ever occur to your punk ass I am in real life the same as I am on this board? No, it doesn't cuz you ain't that bright. You just think you are.

You think I'm Progressive?

Oh my god, that's rich. I can only imagine your definition of Liberal then.

Strawman? I don't care if you are the same in real life as you are here. I'm sure you are. However, calling me a pissant doesn't do anything.

Actually, I think you're a punkass fuckstick with a big mouth that doesn't have a clue.

Next?