|
rnershigh -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 8:36:46 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
What absolutely amazes me is the lengths some people will go to in order to prove their points. Like saying if we are going to allow smoking then why have a military. Or attempting to make out like allowing owners of businesses to decide what happens in their establishments is somehow equivalent to beating children.
[:D]It's called "hyperbole". I forget that many folks don't understand that concept but I tried to explain it in later posts which apparently you didn't read.
And, you were the one who accused me of "not taking responsibility for myself" and expecting the government to protect me so someone else showed you how ridiculous that was to say by showing your logic was flawed. The government IS there to protect us. We can disagree at where to draw the line but....
And if you actually read my posts, you would see that I never said smoking is the same as beating children. I was making a point that the idea that if something happens on private property the government should stay out, is also too extreme. There is a middle ground somewhere between anarchy and tyranny.
You beat me to it phosadaud.[:D] I remember reading one of your posts touching upon what EverLearning mentioned. Here it is. I thought you wrote it so well and explained exactly how I view the subject that I'll just cut and paste it here:
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Look, I hate government interference folks but as I keep stating, at some point there is a place for the government (something some of you seem to not be willing to discuss and I think this is an important point and wish some would actually discuss this). You and I may disagree with where that line is drawn and you may think "the market" should intervene in such a deadly thing, but I don't. Maybe you've never watched someone close to you die of some of the horrid smoking related cancers and conditions. Maybe you or someone near and dear to you doesn't have an allergy to cigarette smoke and doesn't have asthma and such. Maybe you've never been in the position where you needed a job so bad to support your kids, that you had to take one that put your health at risk because of someone else's decision to smoke. I'm glad you haven't. But how many people have to suffer for the minority of the population who have a nasty addiction before society says enough is enough. If you want to destroy your own health, go for it, but don't expect society to bend over backwards for you to do it.
Honestly, I can't comprehend the level of selfishness that says if someone doesn't want lung diseases or health issues from my addiction, tough cookies. Find somewhere else to eat, to play, to work.
By the way, would anyone care to address any of my points in prior posts that got glossed over? What criteria do you have for where the government should intervene (I'm assuming that no one on here is an anarchist)?
ETA: IMO, I don't think the increasing smoking bans going into effect around the country is evidence of a creeping "nanny" state so many fear. When it comes to something as harmful as second-hand smoke, I think having government laws and intervention regarding this issue is not intrusion of privacy. How is a person smoking in public an intrusion of their privacy when they're lighting up in the public! That's not very private to me. That is not denying them a right. Last time I checked, the Constitution didn't say that a person's right to smoke cannot be infringed upon. While I don't begrudge a person to smoke, they can smoke all they want for all I care in the privacy of their own home. I just think it's pretty incredulous to state that not letting a person light up for an hour, maybe 2 at the most (or however long a meal lasts for a person), at some restaurant is such a violation of one's rights that the those of us who applaud such measures banning this in certain areas are alarmists and trying to stifle freedom to smoke at one's leisure. [8D]
|
|
|
|