|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 5:00:03 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1089
Status: offline
|
seems to me smokers have rights, they just don't have smoking rights everywhere.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 5:04:42 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 4063
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MyCatSmokey2006
I've been hearing and reading various news articles about states that are imposing smoking bans in most public places like restaurants and even in parking lots of businesses and medical facilities. I don't smoke, but I'm around people who do and I feel that it's a person's individual right to choose where and when to smoke. I believe that smokers are getting a bad rap because of the negative ads claiming that "secondhand smoke causes cancer", and other propaganda by nonsmokers and medical community to try to make people feel guilty about an addictive habit. I've not seen any proof of secondhand smoke causing any problems in my life, so I'm not going to worry about it. In fact, I'm more concerned about what chemicals are in the diesel exhaust of the bus or semi I get stuck behind in traffic every now and then.
I feel that the government has NO right to discriminate against smokers by limiting where and how they can smoke. I mean, if statewide smoking bans are allowed, then what is Big Brother going to go after next? Outlawing caffeine? How about sugar? Those have been found to be addictive substances, so are they going to ban those someday too? Who knows?
What do you think about this?
I haven't read anything but the OP but I can tell ya...this thread's gonna get ugly  
I don't care about the banning and all that. Perfectly fine with me. However...if a place is gonna have a designated smoking area - don't put it out front.  That makes no sense - we hate smoking, so we're gonna shove all the smokers at the front door so everyone else can complain as they walk in the entrance.
What I do resent is the arrogance of people who don't smoke and the attitude that they are somehow a cleaner person. Puhleaze...that gagging perfume/cologne that you (universal you) bathed in, while you look down your nose at smokers, is as bad as the smoke and causes just as many problems.
Unless you're coming to my home thinking you're gonna enforce a ban on smoking in my back yard, I don't really mind.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 5:14:33 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 4063
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Note to Smokers:
Get over yourselves. You have no rights (smoking-wise) that are protected by the US Constitution. deal with it.  You do have the freedom to whine, though. 
this just serves as support for my post...man, seriously...just rude and caustic
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 5:36:04 PM
|
|
|
dawgfan42
Posts: 5529
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Cleveland now in Honolulu..
Status: offline
|
The health aspects are of lung cancer,etc.. But how come the smoker is singled out? A person with an alchahol habit can sustain liver damage,and as far as second hand smoke. A person can leave or what ever. But a person who drives drunk can kill people too..
_____________________________
My blog
* I do reserve the right to comment on any matter at anytime**
9.11.01 Will Never Forget ..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 5:47:49 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 446
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dawgfan_40
A person can leave or what ever.
I live in a state that has effectively banned smoking nearly everywhere and I'm glad they did. I don't tolerate the smoke well at all, irritates my eye, noise etc. After the ban it was wonderful to go bowling and not need to take a shower to get the smoke smell out of my hair. I had stopped going to some restaurants where the non-smoking section had as much smoke as the smoking section.
It would be hard to imagine going back... though as I travel through some states I am reminded that the reforms are not national yet.
Second hand smoke is real. My mother-in-law suffers from some respiratory ailments that were supposed to be restricted to smokers... her father chain smoked when she grew up and she's paying for it 50 years later.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 6:35:10 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1089
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dawgfan_40
The health aspects are of lung cancer,etc.. But how come the smoker is singled out? A person with an alchahol habit can sustain liver damage,and as far as second hand smoke. A person can leave or what ever. But a person who drives drunk can kill people too..
it's possible to compare the dangers of driving while smoking and driving while drunk, and okay...let's compare the dangers of being in a room with someone with liver damge to someone smoking.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 8:07:11 PM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 8:27:21 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1089
Status: offline
|
but really we want the powers that be to enforce some rules in our places of business. we don't want drunk or disorderly conduct, assault, nakedness etc etc. so really we don't want full unaided jurisdiction.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 8:36:46 PM
|
|
|
rnershigh
Posts: 1372
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: somewhere over the rainbow
Status: offline
|
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.
 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. 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.
< Message edited by rnershigh -- 2/25/2008 8:49:55 PM >
_____________________________
O Grave! where is thy Victory?
O Death! where is thy Sting?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 8:50:35 PM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
why should you be able to blow your poison fumes on me? no way!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 9:14:37 PM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rnershigh
Last time I checked, the Constitution didn't say that a person's right to smoke cannot be infringed upon.
And nowhere in the constitution does it grant non-smokers smoke free facilities. Nor does the constitution give the government the power to regulate when and where smoking can take place.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 9:18:30 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1089
Status: offline
|
can it regulate where nakedness takes place? why should it?
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/25/2008 9:33:52 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9730
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
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.
I understand hyperbole and i did in fact read you subsequent posts. That is about like a judge striking a comment from the record, it has already been made and had it's effect.
Huh? I've never changed what I said. You apparently don't get what I said.
quote:
quote:
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....
The police are to enforce the laws and the military is to carry out it's constitutionally appointed powers. Nowhere in the constitution is the right to force a property owner to cater to your desires spelled out. Therefore it is up to you to take responsibility for yourself.
Wow. You really don't get my argument do you? Where have I said that property owners are supposed to cater to "my desires"? I have only argued that because second hand smoke causes physical harm on innocent parties, I believe the government has the right to say that in places that are open to the general public, people don't have the right to inflict physical harm on me, my family, my kids, etc.
With your philosophy, there should be no laws or regulations at all. After all, my preference is to eat food that isn't spoiled and I suppose if I really "took responsibility" I would never eat anything that I didn't personally grow and prepare. Or, people should be able to have sex right on their table and the restaurant owner should allow it because most people prefer not to see that and if I don't want to see that, I shouldn't go out. Again, there is a middle ground here. Or are you an anarchist? (I ask this in all seriousness because there are many anarchists out there).
quote:
quote:
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.
Beating your children is against the law and that is why i pointed out that statement you made. You attempted to use an illegal activity, which brings it under the jurisdiction of the government, to make the point of why a perfectly legal activity should come under the governments jurisdiciton. Hyperbole or not it was not a valid comparison.
And why is it illegal? It's illegal because someone is causing physical harm on another innocent individual. The government made it illegal to protect the individual. Smoking causes physical harm to another innocent individual (ie - the nonsmoker). The government making that illegal is doing so to protect the individual. The hyperbole stands (please look it up in the dictionary if you really don't get what it means).
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept. I can get people disagreeing with me on where to draw the line but....
_____________________________
~Kristin~
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/26/2008 8:40:01 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 588
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
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.
What you did is not hyperbole. A hyperbole is an exxageration, such as, "if I told you once, I told you a million times."
quote:
And nowhere in the constitution does it grant non-smokers smoke free facilities. Nor does the constitution give the government the power to regulate when and where smoking can take place.
State governments, absent some provision in their Constitutions, certainly have the power. The US Constitution even mentions this in the 10th Amendment:
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
< Message edited by SteveSund -- 2/26/2008 8:48:53 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/26/2008 8:42:16 AM
|
|
|
briar-rose
Posts: 21
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
I am an ex smoker, my boyfriend is a smoker. When we go out to eat we respect the law as not smoking indoors. But how far is the goverment going to take it. Now see ads about not smoking in the car or in your home because of the effects of second hand smoke on children. Will it go so far as the goverment will tell people they can't have a smoking room in there own house? What about alcohol. Maybe they should focus more on getting drunk drivers off the road then worry about where people smoke.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/26/2008 8:52:55 AM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
They do crack down on drunk drivers. Constantly.
Alcohol fumes do not trigger asthma attacks. It does not get into your clothing all the way to your underwear. It does not cause sinus congestion, bronchitis, or red itchy eyes. Ciggarette smoke does. It effects the health of anyone around it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/26/2008 9:13:23 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6344
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
quote:
ORIGINAL: rnershigh
Last time I checked, the Constitution didn't say that a person's right to smoke cannot be infringed upon.
And nowhere in the constitution does it grant non-smokers smoke free facilities. Nor does the constitution give the government the power to regulate when and where smoking can take place.
Is it okay with you if tobacco chewers begin spitting their juice at your feet in public as they once did before government began interferring with their "rights"?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Precisely. It's not a choice between absolutely zero governmental intereference and complete tyranny...
