Smoking Bans

[dblack]

The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

Of course not. The fact that such a question makes sense to you is the core of the problem.

It doesn't make sense to me. But it does to some of the Denialists here.
I like the policy. For me it's a selling point.

But you fail to recognize that one business refusing to allow smoking isn't the same as a law banning it for everyone.

Who the hell's talking about "banning for everyone"?
I just want the right to breathe air. That's it.

No, if you support smoking bans, that's simply not true. In that case, what you want is the power to dictate to others what sort of air they breathe.

 

[Pogo]

The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

Of course not. The fact that such a question makes sense to you is the core of the problem.

It doesn't make sense to me. But it does to some of the Denialists here.
I like the policy. For me it's a selling point.

But you fail to recognize that one business refusing to allow smoking isn't the same as a law banning it for everyone.

Who the hell's talking about "banning for everyone"?
I just want the right to breathe air. That's it.

No, if you support smoking bans, that's simply not true. In that case, what you want is the power to dictate to others what sort of air they breathe.

That makes no sense at all.
As we went over here a week ago or two weeks, whenever it was --- it is the smoker who dictate what sort of air everybody around them breathes.

To paraphrase an old maxim: You're entitled to your own health risks. You're not entitled to your own atmosphere.

 

[Pogo]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

you think those taxes offset the burden placed upon society by smokers like Boehner (R) and their astronomical medical bills, not to mention the untold effects of 2nd hand smoke? lol

link?

How you really thought much about this vector? About where such micromanagement of our individual risk choices by government really leads us? I wish you, and all your statist compatriots, would take a deep breath and consider where you're trying to steer us.

Why are murder, assault and rape illegal?
Ain't dat micromanagement of individual choice by gummint?

 

[dblack]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

you think those taxes offset the burden placed upon society by smokers like Boehner (R) and their astronomical medical bills, not to mention the untold effects of 2nd hand smoke? lol

link?

How you really thought much about this vector? About where such micromanagement of our individual risk choices by government really leads us? I wish you, and all your statist compatriots, would take a deep breath and consider where you're trying to steer us.

Why are murder, assault and rape illegal?
Ain't dat micromanagement of individual choice by gummint?

No.

 

[Pogo]

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

you think those taxes offset the burden placed upon society by smokers like Boehner (R) and their astronomical medical bills, not to mention the untold effects of 2nd hand smoke? lol

link?

How you really thought much about this vector? About where such micromanagement of our individual risk choices by government really leads us? I wish you, and all your statist compatriots, would take a deep breath and consider where you're trying to steer us.

Why are murder, assault and rape illegal?
Ain't dat micromanagement of individual choice by gummint?

No.

Then what's the difference?

 

[Pop23]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

you think those taxes offset the burden placed upon society by smokers like Boehner (R) and their astronomical medical bills, not to mention the untold effects of 2nd hand smoke? lol

link shit stain @Pop23 ?

Link to the fact that cigarettes are taxed higher than most consumable products?

Get out more!

 

[Pop23]

The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

Of course not. The fact that such a question makes sense to you is the core of the problem.

It doesn't make sense to me. But it does to some of the Denialists here.
I like the policy. For me it's a selling point.

But you fail to recognize that one business refusing to allow smoking isn't the same as a law banning it for everyone.

Who the hell's talking about "banning for everyone"?
I just want the right to breathe air. That's it.

Nobody wants to deny that right, just allow those that don't feel so threatened, the right to run a business that allows their customers the right to consume the legal product

 

[dblack]

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

you think those taxes offset the burden placed upon society by smokers like Boehner (R) and their astronomical medical bills, not to mention the untold effects of 2nd hand smoke? lol

link?

How you really thought much about this vector? About where such micromanagement of our individual risk choices by government really leads us? I wish you, and all your statist compatriots, would take a deep breath and consider where you're trying to steer us.

Why are murder, assault and rape illegal?
Ain't dat micromanagement of individual choice by gummint?

No.

Then what's the difference?

Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect our freedom. Laws that tell us we can't have restaurants that cater to smokers violate our freedom.

 

[Pogo]

The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

Of course not. The fact that such a question makes sense to you is the core of the problem.

It doesn't make sense to me. But it does to some of the Denialists here.
I like the policy. For me it's a selling point.

But you fail to recognize that one business refusing to allow smoking isn't the same as a law banning it for everyone.

Who the hell's talking about "banning for everyone"?
I just want the right to breathe air. That's it.

Nobody wants to deny that right, just allow those that don't feel so threatened, the right to run a business that allows their customers the right to consume the legal product

Fine by me. I think the onus should be on the offender, not the vehicle.

 

[Pogo]

you think those taxes offset the burden placed upon society by smokers like Boehner (R) and their astronomical medical bills, not to mention the untold effects of 2nd hand smoke? lol

link?

How you really thought much about this vector? About where such micromanagement of our individual risk choices by government really leads us? I wish you, and all your statist compatriots, would take a deep breath and consider where you're trying to steer us.

Why are murder, assault and rape illegal?
Ain't dat micromanagement of individual choice by gummint?

No.

Then what's the difference?

Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect our freedom. Laws that tell us we can't have restaurants that cater to smokers violate our freedom.

Bzzt.
Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect the potentially murdered, assaulted or raped.
Start there.

 

[dblack]

How you really thought much about this vector? About where such micromanagement of our individual risk choices by government really leads us? I wish you, and all your statist compatriots, would take a deep breath and consider where you're trying to steer us.

Why are murder, assault and rape illegal?
Ain't dat micromanagement of individual choice by gummint?

No.

Then what's the difference?

Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect our freedom. Laws that tell us we can't have restaurants that cater to smokers violate our freedom.

Bzzt.
Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect the potentially murdered, assaulted or raped.
Start there.

???

 

[Pogo]

Why are murder, assault and rape illegal?
Ain't dat micromanagement of individual choice by gummint?

No.

Then what's the difference?

Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect our freedom. Laws that tell us we can't have restaurants that cater to smokers violate our freedom.

Bzzt.
Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect the potentially murdered, assaulted or raped.
Start there.

???

Wassamatta? Afraid of where that will take you?

That answer was really weak. Laws don't "protect freedoms"; laws restrict freedoms. The Constitution is what protects freedoms. For instance you and I can freely discourse, including adversely about the government, and the government can't shut us up because the First Amendment protects us. If that protection were not present, what would restrict us would be laws.

On the other hand you and I don't have the "freedom" to assault, murder, rape, steal etc etc because we have collectively decided citizens don't have the right to harm each other.

Now apply that to a smoker -- harming the people around him. See where we are?

 

[Pop23]

No.

Then what's the difference?

Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect our freedom. Laws that tell us we can't have restaurants that cater to smokers violate our freedom.

Bzzt.
Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect the potentially murdered, assaulted or raped.
Start there.

???

Wassamatta? Afraid of where that will take you?

That answer was really weak. Laws don't "protect freedoms"; laws restrict freedoms. The Constitution is what protects freedoms. For instance you and I can freely discourse, including adversely about the government, and the government can't shut us up because the First Amendment protects us. If that protection were not present, what would restrict us would be laws.

On the other hand you and I don't have the "freedom" to assault, murder, rape, steal etc etc because we have collectively decided citizens don't have the right to harm each other.

Now apply that to a smoker -- harming the people around him. See where we are?

I'll remind you that assault is legal when the participants agree to said assault. Those principles apply to adults and, with the permission of a parent(s) to minors also.

It is a principle that has been around for centuries.

It's a simple and necessary concept

 

[Pop23]

Then what's the difference?

Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect our freedom. Laws that tell us we can't have restaurants that cater to smokers violate our freedom.

Bzzt.
Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect the potentially murdered, assaulted or raped.
Start there.

???

Wassamatta? Afraid of where that will take you?

That answer was really weak. Laws don't "protect freedoms"; laws restrict freedoms. The Constitution is what protects freedoms. For instance you and I can freely discourse, including adversely about the government, and the government can't shut us up because the First Amendment protects us. If that protection were not present, what would restrict us would be laws.

On the other hand you and I don't have the "freedom" to assault, murder, rape, steal etc etc because we have collectively decided citizens don't have the right to harm each other.

Now apply that to a smoker -- harming the people around him. See where we are?

I'll remind you that assault is legal when the participants agree to said assault. Those principles apply to adults and, with the permission of a parent(s) to minors also.

It is a principle that has been around for centuries.

It's a simple and necessary concept

Walking through a door of another's business, when notice is on the door is consent.

 

[Pogo]

Then what's the difference?

Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect our freedom. Laws that tell us we can't have restaurants that cater to smokers violate our freedom.

Bzzt.
Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect the potentially murdered, assaulted or raped.
Start there.

???

Wassamatta? Afraid of where that will take you?

That answer was really weak. Laws don't "protect freedoms"; laws restrict freedoms. The Constitution is what protects freedoms. For instance you and I can freely discourse, including adversely about the government, and the government can't shut us up because the First Amendment protects us. If that protection were not present, what would restrict us would be laws.

On the other hand you and I don't have the "freedom" to assault, murder, rape, steal etc etc because we have collectively decided citizens don't have the right to harm each other.

Now apply that to a smoker -- harming the people around him. See where we are?

I'll remind you that assault is legal when the participants agree to said assault. Those principles apply to adults and, with the permission of a parent(s) to minors also.

It is a principle that has been around for centuries.

It's a simple and necessary concept

Whatever that might mean, it's got about as much to do with that point as radon did.
And well we remember how that worked out.

 

[Pop23]

Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect our freedom. Laws that tell us we can't have restaurants that cater to smokers violate our freedom.

Bzzt.
Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect the potentially murdered, assaulted or raped.
Start there.

???

Wassamatta? Afraid of where that will take you?

That answer was really weak. Laws don't "protect freedoms"; laws restrict freedoms. The Constitution is what protects freedoms. For instance you and I can freely discourse, including adversely about the government, and the government can't shut us up because the First Amendment protects us. If that protection were not present, what would restrict us would be laws.

On the other hand you and I don't have the "freedom" to assault, murder, rape, steal etc etc because we have collectively decided citizens don't have the right to harm each other.

Now apply that to a smoker -- harming the people around him. See where we are?

I'll remind you that assault is legal when the participants agree to said assault. Those principles apply to adults and, with the permission of a parent(s) to minors also.

It is a principle that has been around for centuries.

It's a simple and necessary concept

Whatever that might mean, it's got about as much to do with that point as radon did.
And well we remember how that worked out.

So you disagree that adults can agree to being assaulted? For weeks you've been whining about how somehow, a smoker in a bar or restaurant assaults you with smoke.

Then you bring up murder, rape, what else jay walking?

Puleeze

 

[Pogo]

Bzzt.
Laws prohibiting murder, assault and rape protect the potentially murdered, assaulted or raped.
Start there.

???

Wassamatta? Afraid of where that will take you?

That answer was really weak. Laws don't "protect freedoms"; laws restrict freedoms. The Constitution is what protects freedoms. For instance you and I can freely discourse, including adversely about the government, and the government can't shut us up because the First Amendment protects us. If that protection were not present, what would restrict us would be laws.

On the other hand you and I don't have the "freedom" to assault, murder, rape, steal etc etc because we have collectively decided citizens don't have the right to harm each other.

Now apply that to a smoker -- harming the people around him. See where we are?

I'll remind you that assault is legal when the participants agree to said assault. Those principles apply to adults and, with the permission of a parent(s) to minors also.

It is a principle that has been around for centuries.

It's a simple and necessary concept

Whatever that might mean, it's got about as much to do with that point as radon did.
And well we remember how that worked out.

So you disagree that adults can agree to being assaulted? For weeks you've been whining about how somehow, a smoker in a bar or restaurant assaults you with smoke.

Then you bring up murder, rape, what else jay walking?

Puleeze

I'm afraid "Puleeze" isn't an argument.
Murder, rape and assault harm people. Jaywalking doesn't.
I get it --- this is the new radon right? Puleeze.

And no, I didn't bring up "assault" until this analogy.

 

[Pop23]

???

Wassamatta? Afraid of where that will take you?

That answer was really weak. Laws don't "protect freedoms"; laws restrict freedoms. The Constitution is what protects freedoms. For instance you and I can freely discourse, including adversely about the government, and the government can't shut us up because the First Amendment protects us. If that protection were not present, what would restrict us would be laws.

On the other hand you and I don't have the "freedom" to assault, murder, rape, steal etc etc because we have collectively decided citizens don't have the right to harm each other.

Now apply that to a smoker -- harming the people around him. See where we are?

I'll remind you that assault is legal when the participants agree to said assault. Those principles apply to adults and, with the permission of a parent(s) to minors also.

It is a principle that has been around for centuries.

It's a simple and necessary concept

Whatever that might mean, it's got about as much to do with that point as radon did.
And well we remember how that worked out.

So you disagree that adults can agree to being assaulted? For weeks you've been whining about how somehow, a smoker in a bar or restaurant assaults you with smoke.

Then you bring up murder, rape, what else jay walking?

Puleeze

I'm afraid "Puleeze" isn't an argument.
Murder, rape and assault harm people. Jaywalking doesn't.
I get it --- this is the new radon right? Puleeze.

And no, I didn't bring up "assault" until this analogy.

Lol, I suppose your objection to smoking is?????

Assault can harm, and as a free people we are free to consent to it.

In the last 10 minutes I've watched several dozen consensual assaults on espn.

Guess since they can cause harm, we should have all football players arrested.

Oh, and those that die after one of those "assaults", consented to that potential harm.

Get it

 

[Pogo]

Wassamatta? Afraid of where that will take you?

That answer was really weak. Laws don't "protect freedoms"; laws restrict freedoms. The Constitution is what protects freedoms. For instance you and I can freely discourse, including adversely about the government, and the government can't shut us up because the First Amendment protects us. If that protection were not present, what would restrict us would be laws.

On the other hand you and I don't have the "freedom" to assault, murder, rape, steal etc etc because we have collectively decided citizens don't have the right to harm each other.

Now apply that to a smoker -- harming the people around him. See where we are?

I'll remind you that assault is legal when the participants agree to said assault. Those principles apply to adults and, with the permission of a parent(s) to minors also.

It is a principle that has been around for centuries.

It's a simple and necessary concept

Whatever that might mean, it's got about as much to do with that point as radon did.
And well we remember how that worked out.

So you disagree that adults can agree to being assaulted? For weeks you've been whining about how somehow, a smoker in a bar or restaurant assaults you with smoke.

Then you bring up murder, rape, what else jay walking?

Puleeze

I'm afraid "Puleeze" isn't an argument.
Murder, rape and assault harm people. Jaywalking doesn't.
I get it --- this is the new radon right? Puleeze.

And no, I didn't bring up "assault" until this analogy.

Lol, I suppose your objection to smoking is?????

Assault can harm, and as a free people we are free to consent to it.

In the last 10 minutes I've watched several dozen consensual assaults on espn.

Guess since they can cause harm, we should have all football players arrested.

Oh, and those that die after one of those "assaults", consented to that potential harm.

Get it

What in the wide world of **** are you even talking about?

Assault is illegal. You could look it up.
Methinks you must of be smokin' them self-rolled radon cigarettes...

 

[Pop23]

I'll remind you that assault is legal when the participants agree to said assault. Those principles apply to adults and, with the permission of a parent(s) to minors also.

It is a principle that has been around for centuries.

It's a simple and necessary concept

Whatever that might mean, it's got about as much to do with that point as radon did.
And well we remember how that worked out.

So you disagree that adults can agree to being assaulted? For weeks you've been whining about how somehow, a smoker in a bar or restaurant assaults you with smoke.

Then you bring up murder, rape, what else jay walking?

Puleeze

I'm afraid "Puleeze" isn't an argument.
Murder, rape and assault harm people. Jaywalking doesn't.
I get it --- this is the new radon right? Puleeze.

And no, I didn't bring up "assault" until this analogy.

Lol, I suppose your objection to smoking is?????

Assault can harm, and as a free people we are free to consent to it.

In the last 10 minutes I've watched several dozen consensual assaults on espn.

Guess since they can cause harm, we should have all football players arrested.

Oh, and those that die after one of those "assaults", consented to that potential harm.

Get it

What in the wide world of **** are you even talking about?

Assault is illegal. You could look it up.
Methinks you must of be smokin' them self-rolled radon cigarettes...

A quarterback taking a blind side sack, without consenting to the possibility would be assault, possibly, assault with the intent to kill.

You paint with a broad brush and then pretend there is no such thing as legal assault.

So, how did the law protect the assault, and the assaulted?

Clue, it didn't.