Party of free choice???

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Yeah, the anti-smoking thing is going too far all over.

NO! It won't have gone far enough until it's banned in every public space. Smokers can insist on killing themselves with their addiction. They have no right to inflict their toxins on others.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

What gives you the right to ban something that is legal to do? People do not have to go to places that allow smoking and there are plenty of places that are smoke free.

Now, there's a softball question.

1. Second hand smoke is carcinogenic and otherwise toxic to everyone.
   
2. Employees in public workplaces where smoking is allowed, such as restaurants and bars, are subjected to extreme amounts of these pathogens. It is not only unfair, it's irrational to force them to choose between their job and their health.
   
3. Others in the public, including children, seniors and those already suffering lung, heart and other ailments, have a right to be in public places without being exposed to controllable sources of toxins and pathogens.
   
4. There is no way to remove all of the tobacco toxins from the air in public places.
   
5. Smoking is an optional activity of a limited group of addicts. It is an activity that pollutes the the envirnonement common to everyone, but it does not serve the public interest in any way.
   
6. Legislators are responsible for legislating in the public interest, which includes mitigation of public health hazards.

Banning smoking in public places is perfectly reasonable, highly enlightened legistlation. :thumbsup:

< edit >

Fixed the name in the second quote.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Great post in response to Pabster's question Harvey.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Smoking nazis banning smoking in Iowa House.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy a smoke free bar at times but other times I do light up. IMO, it should be the choice of the business - NOT the gov't.

So is the Iowa D party for or against free choice?

They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

Because we force non-smokers to go to places that allow smoking... :roll:

Bad argument. Nobody forces smokers to go to places that prohibit smoking. That works both ways.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Banning smoking in public places is perfectly reasonable, highly enlightened legistlation. :thumbsup:

Businesses such as bars, clubs and restaurants are not public - they're private.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Yeah, the anti-smoking thing is going too far all over.

NO! It won't have gone far enough until it's banned in every public space. Smokers can insist on killing themselves with their addiction. They have no right to inflict their toxins on others.

Originally posted by: Pabster

What gives you the right to ban something that is legal to do? People do not have to go to places that allow smoking and there are plenty of places that are smoke free.

Now, there's a softball question.

1. Second hand smoke is carcinogenic and otherwise toxic to everyone.
   
2. Employees in public workplaces where smoking is allowed, such as restaurants and bars, are subjected to extreme amounts of these pathogens. It is not only unfair, it's irrational to force them to choose between their job and their health.
   
3. Others in the public, including children, seniors and those already suffering lung, heart and other ailments, have a right to be in public places without being exposed to controllable sources of toxins and pathogens.
   
4. There is no way to remove all of the tobacco toxins from the air in public places.
   
5. Smoking is an optional activity of a limited group of addicts. It is an activity that pollutes the the envirnonement common to everyone, but it does not serve the public interest in any way.
   
6. Legislators are responsible for legislating in the public interest, which includes mitigation of public health hazards.

Banning smoking in public places is perfectly reasonable, highly enlightened legistlation. :thumbsup:

Highly enlightened? :roll:

Again, YOU as an individual have a choice to enter or not enter places that allow smoking. Likewise YOU as an individual have the choice of wheter or not to take a job that places you in that environment. You people who want to have the gov't make that choice for you are weak. Why don't you just chose places that don't allow smoking(make statement with your money) and let each business make their own choice?
Facists.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

What gives you the right to ban something that is legal to do? People do not have to go to places that allow smoking and there are plenty of places that are smoke free.

I should be allowed to urinate and defecate wherever I feel like. After all, it's legal for me to piss and shit in the comfort of my own home. Or sex! I should be able to fornicate wherever I damn well please. But nooooo, the MAN wants to suppress my rights to have a wild watersports scat orgy in my public park. It's disgusting!

The government sets time and place restrictions all the time. It's legal to sell alcohol, but not between 2:30am and 7:00am. It's legal to consume alcohol, but not on public property. It's legal to drive 65 on the freeway, but not through a residential neighborhood. Part of living together as a society is coming up with a set of rules that we can all agree to abide by, and these include rules that tell us when a certain behavior is acceptable or when it is not. It's always been that way, it always will be. Can you imagine if everything that was legal in any place was legal everywhere, any time? My God, it would be catastrophic. Although it would certainly help with the morality problem we have in this country (mainly that everyone is too damn concerned with morality to the point where breasts are taboo).

Not even close to the same thing. These strawmen have been tried before but still don't work.

Why are they not the same? All governmental laws (or nearly all) infringe upon liberty in some way. The entire basis for a law being able to do so is that they have to prove a benefit to society that exceeds the burden placed upon citizens to follow it. (at least in theory). This is why you can't drive your car 65 down a residential street.

Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause all sorts of problems, cancers, etc. in people who have nothing to do with the person smoking. The contention that people who don't want to inhale secondhand smoke simply should not visit bars or restaurants that allow smoking is not a realistic solution. So, to view smoking as some sort of assault on personal liberty is true in a sense, but it has plenty of company in other laws that I don't think you care much about.

I for one have to say that I looooooove the smoking ban in California. I hate that when I go home to Pennsylvania and go to the bar I come back covered in the stench of cigarettes, my hair, my clothes, everything. (then my pillow when I go to sleep... nasty) What's amazing is that even my friends who smoke love the smoking ban. It gives them all sorts of chances to meet new people outside in the smoking areas, etc. Now I think about the hysteria before the ban was passed about how people weren't going to go to the bar anymore and I laugh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Smoking nazis banning smoking in Iowa House.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy a smoke free bar at times but other times I do light up. IMO, it should be the choice of the business - NOT the gov't.

So is the Iowa D party for or against free choice?

They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

Because we force non-smokers to go to places that allow smoking... :roll:

Bad argument. Nobody forces smokers to go to places that prohibit smoking. That works both ways.

No it doesn't. This legislation bans smoking so there will be no where to go that allows smoking(minus the 2 exceptions - 1 of which is private clubs). This issue is also about business owners - not just patrons.

 

[bamacre]

Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

What gives you the right to ban something that is legal to do? People do not have to go to places that allow smoking and there are plenty of places that are smoke free.

I should be allowed to urinate and defecate wherever I feel like. After all, it's legal for me to piss and shit in the comfort of my own home. Or sex! I should be able to fornicate wherever I damn well please. But nooooo, the MAN wants to suppress my rights to have a wild watersports scat orgy in my public park. It's disgusting!

The government sets time and place restrictions all the time. It's legal to sell alcohol, but not between 2:30am and 7:00am. It's legal to consume alcohol, but not on public property. It's legal to drive 65 on the freeway, but not through a residential neighborhood. Part of living together as a society is coming up with a set of rules that we can all agree to abide by, and these include rules that tell us when a certain behavior is acceptable or when it is not. It's always been that way, it always will be. Can you imagine if everything that was legal in any place was legal everywhere, any time? My God, it would be catastrophic. Although it would certainly help with the morality problem we have in this country (mainly that everyone is too damn concerned with morality to the point where breasts are taboo).

Not even close to the same thing. These strawmen have been tried before but still don't work.

Why are they not the same? All governmental laws (or nearly all) infringe upon liberty in some way. The entire basis for a law being able to do so is that they have to prove a benefit to society that exceeds the burden placed upon citizens to follow it. (at least in theory). This is why you can't drive your car 65 down a residential street.

Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause all sorts of problems, cancers, etc. in people who have nothing to do with the person smoking. The contention that people who don't want to inhale secondhand smoke simply should not visit bars or restaurants that allow smoking is not a realistic solution. So, to view smoking as some sort of assault on personal liberty is true in a sense, but it has plenty of company in other laws that I don't think you care much about.

I for one have to say that I looooooove the smoking ban in California. I hate that when I go home to Pennsylvania and go to the bar I come back covered in the stench of cigarettes, my hair, my clothes, everything. (then my pillow when I go to sleep... nasty) What's amazing is that even my friends who smoke love the smoking ban. It gives them all sorts of chances to meet new people outside in the smoking areas, etc. Now I think about the hysteria before the ban was passed about how people weren't going to go to the bar anymore and I laugh.

I have a suggestion for you facists then - ban cigarettes/cigars/smoke tobacco if it's such a public health issue.
Oh wait....prohibition doesn't work.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

:beer:

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

What gives you the right to ban something that is legal to do? People do not have to go to places that allow smoking and there are plenty of places that are smoke free.

I should be allowed to urinate and defecate wherever I feel like. After all, it's legal for me to piss and shit in the comfort of my own home. Or sex! I should be able to fornicate wherever I damn well please. But nooooo, the MAN wants to suppress my rights to have a wild watersports scat orgy in my public park. It's disgusting!

The government sets time and place restrictions all the time. It's legal to sell alcohol, but not between 2:30am and 7:00am. It's legal to consume alcohol, but not on public property. It's legal to drive 65 on the freeway, but not through a residential neighborhood. Part of living together as a society is coming up with a set of rules that we can all agree to abide by, and these include rules that tell us when a certain behavior is acceptable or when it is not. It's always been that way, it always will be. Can you imagine if everything that was legal in any place was legal everywhere, any time? My God, it would be catastrophic. Although it would certainly help with the morality problem we have in this country (mainly that everyone is too damn concerned with morality to the point where breasts are taboo).

Not even close to the same thing. These strawmen have been tried before but still don't work.

You are right. They are not even close to the same thing. Sex and nudity do not hurt other people. Smoking does.

 

[Pabster]

Just for the record, Harvey, the second statement you attributed to me was not my quote. :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

I can't believe it, but I'm in total agreement. :thumbsup:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Highly enlightened? :roll:

Again, YOU as an individual have a choice to enter or not enter places that allow smoking. Likewise YOU as an individual have the choice of wheter or not to take a job that places you in that environment.

CONSUMATE BULLSHIT! For most people, working is not an option, and jobs are where they find them. Furthermore, kids have no such choice when their parents bring them to public spaces where smoking is allowed. Should we bar kids from attending sporting events, restaurants or concerts with their parents, friends or guardians? :roll:

With their own self-inflicted, tobacco related illnesses and infirmities, they're already adding a monumental extra burden on the public, both through their own lost productivity and the added strain on health resources. Nicotine addicts have no right to infest PUBLIC spaces with their toxins. We can't stop them from killing themselves, but we can and should continue to stop them from killing others in PUBLIC places.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

What gives you the right to ban something that is legal to do? People do not have to go to places that allow smoking and there are plenty of places that are smoke free.

I should be allowed to urinate and defecate wherever I feel like. After all, it's legal for me to piss and shit in the comfort of my own home. Or sex! I should be able to fornicate wherever I damn well please. But nooooo, the MAN wants to suppress my rights to have a wild watersports scat orgy in my public park. It's disgusting!

The government sets time and place restrictions all the time. It's legal to sell alcohol, but not between 2:30am and 7:00am. It's legal to consume alcohol, but not on public property. It's legal to drive 65 on the freeway, but not through a residential neighborhood. Part of living together as a society is coming up with a set of rules that we can all agree to abide by, and these include rules that tell us when a certain behavior is acceptable or when it is not. It's always been that way, it always will be. Can you imagine if everything that was legal in any place was legal everywhere, any time? My God, it would be catastrophic. Although it would certainly help with the morality problem we have in this country (mainly that everyone is too damn concerned with morality to the point where breasts are taboo).

Not even close to the same thing. These strawmen have been tried before but still don't work.

Maybe you should look up the meaning of "strawman." You argued that the government shouldn't be allowed to place restrictions on smoking as smoking is a legal activity. I provided examples (granted, in a sarcastic way) of times where the government places regulations on activities that are otherwise legal. Examples that directly counter a claim are not "strawmen," it is argumentation through example. Time and place restrictions are found throughout our laws, so to make the claim that the government has no business placing regulations on legal activities is patently absurd.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

Are the businesses going to pick up the tab from the billions of dollars smoking costs the country in health care costs? Nope, the 75% of the country that doesn't smoke will. When every smoker pays their own cancer bills then they can complain about loss of liberty.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

ANY TIME THE GOVERNMENT MAKES A LAW IT IS BAD. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO RUN A NUCLEAR REACTOR IN MY LIVING ROOM BECAUSE IF OTHER PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT THEY CAN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Highly enlightened? :roll:

Again, YOU as an individual have a choice to enter or not enter places that allow smoking. Likewise YOU as an individual have the choice of wheter or not to take a job that places you in that environment.

CONSUMATE BULLSHIT! For most people, working is not an option, and jobs are where you find them. Nicotine addicts have no right to infest PUBLIC spaces with their toxins.

With their own self-inflicted, tobacco related illnesses and infirmities, they're already adding a monumental extra burden on the public, both through their own lost productivity and the added strain on health resources. We can't stop them from killing themselves, but we can and should continue to stop them from killing others in PUBLIC places.

Oh I forgot - people are FORCED into jobs - they don't have a choice. stupid slaves... :roll:

 

[Nitemare]

In a free enterprise society that they would like for you to believe we had, it would be up to the proprietor as to whether smoking was allowed or disallowed.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
CONSUMATE BULLSHIT! For most people, working is not an option, and jobs are where you find them. Nicotine addicts have no right to infest PUBLIC spaces with their toxins.

With their own self-inflicted, tobacco related illnesses and infirmities, they're already adding a monumental extra burden on the public, both through their own lost productivity and the added strain on health resources. We can't stop them from killing themselves, but we can and should continue to stop them from killing others in PUBLIC places.

I'll respect your viewpoint, Harvey (though I disagree vehemently...what's new?) but I wonder...How do you feel about obese individuals? Obviously they are costing a fortune in taxpayer dollars with health care, for example. And businesses lose TONS of revenue because of sick days and time off for obese employees. Should they be barred from employment?

I'm trying to illustrate the slippery slope which begins with silly 'legislation' like this. It really doesn't matter that it is Smoking -- it could be fast food ... or alcohol ... or lottery tickets, for all I care. It's the principle of it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

Are the businesses going to pick up the tab from the billions of dollars smoking costs the country in health care costs? Nope, the 75% of the country that doesn't smoke will. When every smoker pays their own cancer bills then they can complain about loss of liberty.

I don't have a problem with that. I also want everyone else who engages in "risky" behavior to cover their own costs. But then again, I don't support gov't health insurance.

 

[Red Dawn]

Actually I think in Iowa they should inisist that all public spaces be a smoke zone, thje more smoke the better.

 

[Double Trouble]

I have absolutely no problem with that smoking ban in Iowa. If they try to ban smoking in your own house, I would object because then you are taking away the right of someone to do something that does not in any way impact innocent others. Banning it in public places and places of employment makes perfect sense. People should not have to choose between employment and health, and they should not have to be subjected to the dangerous chemicals others decide to ingest when they go to public places.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, the anti-smoking thing is going too far all over.

You think? I really don't hear to many smokers complain about it here in MA or when I lived in CA. They just adapted by going outside to smoke.

We have the ban in NY as well. As an ex smoker of 15 years it was an annoyance at first, but after awhile it didn't really matter to me to step outside. Nowadays I'm kind of digging the fact that restaurants and bars are not filled with smoke. I won't ever complain about smokers, or campaign for bans, but I do say that I don't mind that they have moved outside.

 

[BoberFett]

When can we ban children in restaurants? Parents and their whiny little brats ruin more meals for me than cigarettes ever have.