Party of free choice???

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Robor

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.

Bullshit. Smoking isn't a right. Period.

Neither is eating at restaurants.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is no inherent right to fart in public places.

What's the penalty for that? :laugh:

Like I said, slippery slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. If you can not refute this on its own merits you have no argument.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that it has occurred in the past. Otherwise, if the dots can be connected, its use is a valid argument.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

Paris is in France, Harv :roll:

And last time I checked, France was right across the channel from England, and Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others were spending a lot of time in both places.

Of course, you still haven't addressed the question of the significant difference between a restaurant, an inn, a tavern, a cafeteria, a bakery, a clothing store, a library, a sports arena or any other public place when it comes to allowing pathetic addicts to impose and inflict their toxins on others. :|

And your dumb ass argument about drinking and driving is as straw as any man gets. Sheesh! :roll:

I see you still don't read people's posts, drug warrior.

 

[pstylesss]

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 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.

And the government has no right to come into my restaurant, bar, stadium (if private), home, car, boat, airplane, hotel, night club, or golf course and tell me what I can or cannot do in my establishment. My patrons will decide if I go non-smoking or not with their dollar, not the government.

Pabster, it's nice to be agreeing with you again.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

Paris is in France, Harv :roll:

And last time I checked, France was right across the channel from England, and Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others were spending a lot of time in both places.

Of course, you still haven't addressed the question of the significant difference between a restaurant, an inn, a tavern, a cafeteria, a bakery, a clothing store, a library, a sports arena or any other public place when it comes to allowing pathetic addicts to impose and inflict their toxins on others. :|

And your dumb ass argument about drinking and driving is as straw as any man gets. Sheesh! :roll:

I see you still don't read people's posts, drug warrior.

The problem with everything you put in that list is that their are private, save the library and possibly a sports arena.

Places like a clothing store won't allow smoking because it destroys their merchandise. Hmm... interesting how the free market was perfectly capable of going non-smoking there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Robor
Bullshit. Smoking isn't a right. Period.

So what's not a "right" next then? Choosing what to eat? Which potentially dangerous activities to partake in? Alcohol? Sexuality? Abortion?

Get your hands off my body.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

That all depends ona persons Physiology

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Why does it have to be fatal to be an occupational hazard?

Of course it doesn't. But you gotta be able to lift 70 lbs over your head to work for UPS, now don't you? You have to be able to tolerate the smell to be a garbageman, and you gotta accept the risks to be a police officer.
This is no different.

Yes it is and you know it but you are obviously to stubborn to ever admit it.:laugh:

I'm sure I could easily document numerous cases of deaths from asbestos exposure. You can't (and won't be able to) do the same for occupational 2nd-hand smoke exposure, and you're calling me stubborn?

I swear, the anti-tobacco crusade has reached the Reefer Madness stage... :roll:

You you are positive that there are no people who have been made ill by being around second hand smoke?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't know... ask all those black people that successfully sued when the white owners wouldn't let them in.

Are you suggesting Smokers should file suits?

God we need Tort Reform in this country. :laugh:

Tort reform is the rallying cry of corporations that poison or otherwise abuse consumers. Take away the threat of massive damages and corporations will rape pillage and plunder to their hearts content, easily paying off the measely $100,000 to whoever wants it. They spend billions when they F up and kill a few people. At only $100k a pop they could feel free to kill hundreds, even thousands! Joy!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

That all depends ona persons Physiology

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Why does it have to be fatal to be an occupational hazard?

Of course it doesn't. But you gotta be able to lift 70 lbs over your head to work for UPS, now don't you? You have to be able to tolerate the smell to be a garbageman, and you gotta accept the risks to be a police officer.
This is no different.

Yes it is and you know it but you are obviously to stubborn to ever admit it.:laugh:

I'm sure I could easily document numerous cases of deaths from asbestos exposure. You can't (and won't be able to) do the same for occupational 2nd-hand smoke exposure, and you're calling me stubborn?

I swear, the anti-tobacco crusade has reached the Reefer Madness stage... :roll:

You you are positive that there are no people who have been made ill by being around second hand smoke?

I didn't say that. You were the one who suggested that asbestos exposure and 2nd-hand smoke exposure were similar.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Tort reform is the rallying cry of corporations that poison or otherwise abuse consumers. Take away the threat of massive damages and corporations will rape pillage and plunder to their hearts content, easily paying off the measely $100,000 to whoever wants it. They spend billions when they F up and kill a few people. At only $100k a pop they could feel free to kill hundreds, even thousands! Joy!

I'm not going to debate the Tort issue here, because I don't want this thread derailed on that rathole.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Robor
Bullshit. Smoking isn't a right. Period.

So what's not a "right" next then? Choosing what to eat? Which potentially dangerous activities to partake in? Alcohol? Sexuality? Abortion?

You have the "right" to eat what you choose and to partake in alcohol and sex. I don't think you'd pass the physical to have an abortion.

You have absolutely NO "right" to poison and pollute the environment you share with others in public places while pursuing any of the above. :thumbsdown:

Get your hands off my body.

You couldn't pay me enough to put my hands ON your body. :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't know... ask all those black people that successfully sued when the white owners wouldn't let them in.

Are you suggesting Smokers should file suits?

God we need Tort Reform in this country. :laugh:

No we sure don't. Tort "reform" in reality means "legislation enabling massive negligence on the part of corporations with no effective recourse".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't know... ask all those black people that successfully sued when the white owners wouldn't let them in.

Are you suggesting Smokers should file suits?

God we need Tort Reform in this country. :laugh:

Tort reform is the rallying cry of corporations that poison or otherwise abuse consumers. Take away the threat of massive damages and corporations will rape pillage and plunder to their hearts content, easily paying off the measely $100,000 to whoever wants it. They spend billions when they F up and kill a few people. At only $100k a pop they could feel free to kill hundreds, even thousands! Joy!

And OMG now tort reform to the list of stupid straw men along with cries of anti-corporatism. Give it up. If abortions were performed by mega-corps, would that be an excuse for you to have them outlawed?

I find it hard to believe that there is anyone in America who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you. There has been a clear warning label on each and every pack since 1964. So your cries of corporatism here are obviously nothing less than a pathetic excuse for moral authoritarianism. Where's your outrage for the alcohol mega-corps that kill 100k Americans every year?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is no inherent right to fart in public places.

What's the penalty for that? :laugh:

Like I said, slippery slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. If you can not refute this on its own merits you have no argument.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that it has occurred in the past. Otherwise, if the dots can be connected, its use is a valid argument.

No.

Laws against murder are wrong. If you can outlaw murder you can outlaw anything. It is a slippery slope. I can connect the dots. Do you oppose laws against murder? Do you oppose all laws?

Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. Something is right or wrong based on its own merits. You can not argue this law is bad because it may lead to another law later.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Robor
Bullshit. Smoking isn't a right. Period.

So what's not a "right" next then? Choosing what to eat? Which potentially dangerous activities to partake in? Alcohol? Sexuality? Abortion?

You have the "right" to eat what you choose and to partake in alcohol and sex. I don't think you'd pass the physical to have an abortion.

You have absolutely NO "right" to poison and pollute the environment you share with others in public places while pursuing any of the above. :thumbsdown:

Get your hands off my body.

You couldn't pay me enough to put my hands ON your body. :laugh:

It never ceases to amaze me how the people most dangerous to basic civil liberties are also the most ignorant.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

There has been a clear warning label on each and every pack since 1964. So your cries of corporatism here are obviously nothing less than a pathetic excuse for moral authoritarianism.

From what sewer are you dredging up your seemingly endless pile of BULLSHIT?

1. Tobacco companies target kids with their advertising. The reason is obvious. They're killing off their customers, and they need to addict new ones.

2. I was born in 1941. There were no warnings on tobacco packs when I and my friends were a kids. I've lost far too many friends to tobacco caused illnesses. What chance did they have when they were seduced into tobacco addiction?

Ever since, as one marketing method after another is outlawed, they practice the same damned evil in other ways.

3. The tobacco execs have known since the 1950's that tobacco is addictive and carcinogenic. I saw those lying assholes raise their hands and swear to tell the truth to Congress when they said it wasn't.

Where's your outrage for the alcohol mega-corps that kill 100k Americans every year?

The force of the straw is strong in this one. :roll:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic
I find it hard to believe that there is anyone in America who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you. There has been a clear warning label on each and every pack since 1964. So your cries of corporatism here are obviously nothing less than a pathetic excuse for moral authoritarianism. Where's your outrage for the alcohol mega-corps that kill 100k Americans every year?

Funny you mention that. You know the cigarette companies fought tooth and nail not to have to put those warnings on? That when they are sued they used to say, "we don't believe the warnings, we only put them on because it is mandated by the government"? That the only reason they can't say that anymore is because in their master settlement agreement with the states they gave up the right to deny smoking kills?

If the cig corps had their way people in this country would STILL be debating whether tobacco kills. They had their own scientists pushing reports that said tobacco wasn't proven to be the cause of any diseases at all and that it's a 'debate" in the scientific community even though 99% of scientists agreed that tobacco kills? Christ, in 1994 the CEOs stood in front of congress and lied their asses off and each of them testified under oath that they didn't think nicotine was addictive!

Authoritarian my ass, if the govt didn't step in the tobacco companies would still be selling candy cigarettes to kids. Corporate responsibility, please.

As to alcohol, although the number of people who drink far, far eclipses the number of people who smoke, cigarettes have killed millions more, alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as nicotine, and the spirits industry hasn't claimed for the last century that alcohol is harmless. In fact, in moderation it is beneficial in a host of ways. You can compare the two if you like, but it's a seriously weak argument.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is no inherent right to fart in public places.

What's the penalty for that? :laugh:

Like I said, slippery slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. If you can not refute this on its own merits you have no argument.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that it has occurred in the past. Otherwise, if the dots can be connected, its use is a valid argument.

No.

Laws against murder are wrong. If you can outlaw murder you can outlaw anything. It is a slippery slope. I can connect the dots. Do you oppose laws against murder? Do you oppose all laws?

Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. Something is right or wrong based on its own merits. You can not argue this law is bad because it may lead to another law later.

Wow. Clearly you were never on the debate team. FYI: murder, as an extreme crime, is on the opposite side of the spectrum from the point you wanted to make. Had you chosen a lesser, inconsequential offense, like spitting on the sidewalk or smoking in public, then you would have be able to connect the dots.
Here's a tip: logic is inferring the specific to the general, the lesser to the greater. The sun rose this morning, it probably rises every morning. Illogical is the opposite.

Read up
Text

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

As to alcohol, although the number of people who drink far, far eclipses the number of people who smoke, cigarettes have killed millions more, alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as nicotine, and the spirits industry hasn't claimed for the last century that alcohol is harmless. In fact, in moderation it is beneficial in a host of ways. You can compare the two if you like, but it's a seriously weak argument.

Then, there's the question of how many people have been killed by second hand alcohol.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

There has been a clear warning label on each and every pack since 1964. So your cries of corporatism here are obviously nothing less than a pathetic excuse for moral authoritarianism.

From what sewer are you dredging up your seemingly endless pile of BULLSHIT?

1. Tobacco companies target kids with their advertising. The reason is obvious. They're killing off their customers, and they need to addict new ones.

2. I was born in 1941. There were no warnings on tobacco packs when I and my friends were a kids. I've lost far too many friends to tobacco caused illnesses. What chance did they have when they were seduced into tobacco addiction?

Ever since, as one marketing method after another is outlawed, they practice the same damned evil in other ways.

3. The tobacco execs have known since the 1950's that tobacco is addictive and carcinogenic. I saw those lying assholes raise their hands and swear to tell the truth to Congress when they said it wasn't.

Where's your outrage for the alcohol mega-corps that kill 100k Americans every year?

The force of the straw is strong in this one. :roll:

How is that a straw man, Harv? The argument is that tobacco should be disallowed because the product is harmful and sold by mega-corps. I can establish the same relationships for alcohol.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is no inherent right to fart in public places.

What's the penalty for that? :laugh:

Like I said, slippery slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. If you can not refute this on its own merits you have no argument.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that it has occurred in the past. Otherwise, if the dots can be connected, its use is a valid argument.

No.

Laws against murder are wrong. If you can outlaw murder you can outlaw anything. It is a slippery slope. I can connect the dots. Do you oppose laws against murder? Do you oppose all laws?

Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. Something is right or wrong based on its own merits. You can not argue this law is bad because it may lead to another law later.

Wow. Clearly you were never on the debate team. FYI: murder, as an extreme crime, is on the opposite side of the spectrum from the point you wanted to make. Had you chosen a lesser, inconsequential offense, like spitting on the sidewalk or smoking in public, then you would have be able to connect the dots.
Here's a tip: logic is inferring the specific to the general, the lesser to the greater. The sun rose this morning, it probably rises every morning. Illogical is the opposite.

Read up
Text

You really do not have the faintest idea how to make a valid argument do you? You said slippery slope arguments are not fallacies if you can connect the dots. You were wrong. I showed how you were wrong. If you can not provide an argument about how this specific law is bad you are just blowing smoke. Changing the subject does not make you less wrong.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Harvey

The force of the straw is strong in this one. :roll:

How is that a straw man, Harv? The argument is that tobacco should be disallowed because the product is harmful and sold by mega-corps. I can establish the same relationships for alcohol.

NO! There is no "argument" that second hand tobacco kills. The OP's topic is about legislation barring smokers from generating second hand smoke in public places.

Attempting to link this subject to alcohol use or sales is as relevant as comparing it to the relative dangers of wearing t-shirts or playing gin rummy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic
I find it hard to believe that there is anyone in America who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you. There has been a clear warning label on each and every pack since 1964. So your cries of corporatism here are obviously nothing less than a pathetic excuse for moral authoritarianism. Where's your outrage for the alcohol mega-corps that kill 100k Americans every year?

Funny you mention that. You know the cigarette companies fought tooth and nail not to have to put those warnings on? That when they are sued they used to say, "we don't believe the warnings, we only put them on because it is mandated by the government"? That the only reason they can't say that anymore is because in their master settlement agreement with the states they gave up the right to deny smoking kills?

If the cig corps had their way people in this country would STILL be debating whether tobacco kills. They had their own scientists pushing reports that said tobacco wasn't proven to be the cause of any diseases at all and that it's a 'debate" in the scientific community even though 99% of scientists agreed that tobacco kills? Christ, in 1994 the CEOs stood in front of congress and lied their asses off and each of them testified under oath that they didn't think nicotine was addictive!

Authoritarian my ass, if the govt didn't step in the tobacco companies would still be selling candy cigarettes to kids. Corporate responsibility, please.

As to alcohol, although the number of people who drink far, far eclipses the number of people who smoke, cigarettes have killed millions more, alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as nicotine, and the spirits industry hasn't claimed for the last century that alcohol is harmless. In fact, in moderation it is beneficial in a host of ways. You can compare the two if you like, but it's a seriously weak argument.

You're making so many false assumptions here, it's not even funny. I would be much happier if the tobacco companies no longer existed. That, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of smoking.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Then, there's the question of how many people have been killed by second hand alcohol.

Roughly 30k every year in the US alone. How many can you prove are killed by 2nd-hand smoke?

Alcohol is the leading cause of fatal traffic accidents, crime, and murder in the US. In fact, some 60% of all murders in the US are committed under the influence of alcohol.

There's no straw man here, Harv. You've just got your ideological blinders on again, as usual.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is no inherent right to fart in public places.

What's the penalty for that? :laugh:

Like I said, slippery slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. If you can not refute this on its own merits you have no argument.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that it has occurred in the past. Otherwise, if the dots can be connected, its use is a valid argument.

No.

Laws against murder are wrong. If you can outlaw murder you can outlaw anything. It is a slippery slope. I can connect the dots. Do you oppose laws against murder? Do you oppose all laws?

Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. Something is right or wrong based on its own merits. You can not argue this law is bad because it may lead to another law later.

Wow. Clearly you were never on the debate team. FYI: murder, as an extreme crime, is on the opposite side of the spectrum from the point you wanted to make. Had you chosen a lesser, inconsequential offense, like spitting on the sidewalk or smoking in public, then you would have be able to connect the dots.
Here's a tip: logic is inferring the specific to the general, the lesser to the greater. The sun rose this morning, it probably rises every morning. Illogical is the opposite.

Read up
Text

You really do not have the faintest idea how to make a valid argument do you? You said slippery slope arguments are not fallacies if you can connect the dots. You were wrong. I showed how you were wrong. If you can not provide an argument about how this specific law is bad you are just blowing smoke. Changing the subject does not make you less wrong.

I'm arguing with idiots.... :roll:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm arguing with idiots.... :roll:

Yup.