Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Curval on December 31, 2002, 07:46:48 AM
-
freedom (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021230/ap_on_re_us/ny_vice_laws_1)
I have read all about how free you are in the US to buy guns and to shoot them.
Seems like New York is taking a big bite out of the freedom of people to smoke...even in bars.
I thought the US was the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Your not scared of guns....just cigarettes?
(whizzzzzzzzzzz...plonk...the lure is set)
-
Maybe I should change my handle to Beet1e and have a heading "New York Nannies Its Citizens"?
-
no smoking here in my town Curval...
at least not indoors in public places.
-
Isn't that an infringement of a smokers freedom to kill himself slowly.
I know that the laws are in place to protect the lungs of non-smokers...some might call that nannying.
Thanks for playing wlfgng:D
-
FWIW New York City doesn't allow its citizens to buy or shoot guns, either.
-
Quit 3 years ago,
Make them all go smoke in a closet!!
Muahahahahahahahahahahah
-
It's a public health concern. Tho' I still say that if you want to go into a bar, you should expect smoke.
SOB
-
Here in LA smoking is already banned in bars, restaurants, etc.
I really like it. It helped me quit, because I used to smoke a lot in bars just for the heck of it. Now, I don't feel the pressure to smoke in a bar because it's not allowed.
Restaurants- It's a whole new experience eating your food without the smoke from the next booth over coming into your space.
Go smoke outside. I would consider, especially after living in LA, that if someone were to light up next to me in a bar, they might as well have just let a stinky fart.
-
The freedom is to be able to enter any public place without having to breath a carcinogen.
No where in the US is there "freedom" to shoot someone with your gun unless of course they cut you off in traffic. ;)
-
The freedom is to be able to enter any public place without having to breath a carcinogen.
Second hand smoke is not a carcinogen, that is a huge scam.
-
Originally posted by ra
Second hand smoke is not a carcinogen, that is a huge scam.
Perpetuated by the non-tobacco growers of America?
-
just thought I'd pass the lure around Curval .. glad to help ;)
-
Perpetuated by the non-tobacco growers of America?
Perpetuated by lawyers and nannies.
-
Originally posted by ra
Perpetuated by lawyers and nannies.
Ra, I suspect you're serious. If so, then tell me why the same smoke (although filtered) causes lung cancer and many other diseases in smokers but won't affect the health of non smokers? It can't be the quantity since there's no real evidence as to how much smoke it takes to cause these diseases.
-
The stats and study on second hand smoke is flawed. The number of second hand smoke deaths comes out to 1/10 of 1 percent of the U.S. population. With a 3% margin of error, the number is bogus.
New Years resolution, quit smoking. Have patches, hypnosis tapes, herb pills, fat blocker pills.
-
AKIron: The freedom is to be able to enter any public place without having to breath a carcinogen.
Restaurant is not a public place - it's a private property.
Smoking is banned in public (collectivelly owned by whole scoiety) places like streets. In fact, as a result of the ban, dozens of people from bars now step out to smoke outside subjecting the pedestrians to noxious fumes.
miko
-
actually our laws say a restaraunt IS a public place owned by a private person. big difference.
AND the law says no smoking INDOORS in a public place...outdoors is fine.
enclosed spaces with smoke.. yech
outdoors is bad enough but at least it gets dilluted quickly.
oh and you smokers would love the fact that a person can't smoke in their rental unit (employee housing) either :)
step outside in the cold to pollute your lungs
-
Who cares if the sniveling, whiney New Yorkers have to quit blowing their foul second hand smoke in each others faces? As far as I'm concerned we need to make cigarettes even more deadly so that those people stupid enough to smoke will hurry up and die. The only law I would pass is that those people who die from smoking related illnesses be cremated instead of buried. Kinda poetic justice, in my opinion.
-
In Ca. the no smoking laws are based on workers comp.
If you have employees, you cannot allow smoking in the building. There is a bar here in town that is owned and run by a husband and wife. They have no employees and legally allow smoking in the bar.
-
I think it's like the freedom to wildly swing your fist around at the end of your arm.
That freedom stops just short of someone else's nose.
You're free to smoke. You're just not free to cause someone else to smoke your cig with you.
-
nice analogy :)
-
what happend to simple demand/supply rule of free markets ?
If there was such a demand for smoke free bars, then owners would themselves made them smoke-free.
If you don't like the smoke in bars - don't patron them !!! What a novel idea !!! Patron a smoke-free bar, and your patronage will lead to increased demand hence more smoke-free bars.
What happend to you folks advocating "stop to unnessesary laws" ?
Bloomberg on the other cracks me up. Sold himself to voters as businessman who can make the city run. Up till now he's been chasing puritan dreams and budget is going to crap :)
-
i live in LA and ive seen ppl smoke in bars ..i have smoked in a bar although i dont smoke it was just for kicks. im a criminal add me to the % of drug related crimes committed in 2002 so we can have even more police to clean up the streets.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think it's like the freedom to wildly swing your fist around at the end of your arm.
That freedom stops just short of someone else's nose.
You're free to smoke. You're just not free to cause someone else to smoke your cig with you.
Yea, yea...but Toad you are missing the point. The fact is that you yourself have advocated that the British government should ban knives...because they are so deadly, and they should ban them to protect their citizens Here we have a case of an American nannying law being passed...but, somehow this is acceptable to you? I guess because YOU don't smoke?
I thought you were free to do as you want in the US without government steppping in to protect you?
Apparently not.
I'm telling Beet1e.:p
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think it's like the freedom to wildly swing your fist around at the end of your arm.
That freedom stops just short of someone else's nose.
You're free to smoke. You're just not free to cause someone else to smoke your cig with you.
heh yeah-
i quit 3 years ago after 12 years of smoking. at least other drugs get you high, all smoking nicotiene does is make you jones 24/7 with minimal payoff.
-
but of course they'll let you get away with smoking pot here.. just not cigarettes. Gawd Beetle oughta love it!
-
Ra, I suspect you're serious.
I am serious because this is a serious issue. We have funneled billions of dollars to lawyers based on voodoo science. If they hadn't sold us the passive smoke garbage, people would still say 'smoking is obnoxious, but it's none of my business if someone wants to kill himself'. With passive smoke as a carcinogen, now it's everybody's business. I don't smoke and never have, and I don't like having watery eyes and my clothes smelling like smoke. But I've watched the anti-smoking crusaders doing their work since the 80's, and it's all a scam. They can use the same tactics to get money out of other industries: liquor, automobiles, fast food, guns. One by one we give up liberty to the nannies, while a handful of lawyers get rich. I'd rather have my clothes smell like smoke.
It can't be the quantity since there's no real evidence as to how much smoke it takes to cause these diseases.
It is the quantity. You probably inhale more carcinogens every time you fill up your gas tank than you would inhaling second hand smoke for a year. Even the EPA's statisticians (the EPA was the first to declare passive smoke a carcinogen) do not support the conclusion that second hand smoke can be proven to be a carcinogen.
It's just a case of greedy lawyers joining up with do-gooder, health-obsessed nannies.
ra
-
It is an infringement on the bar owners rights. The government is telling him he can't smoke or allow patrons to smoke on his private property .
Stupid people pass stupid laws .
-
Originally posted by ra
It is the quantity. You probably inhale more carcinogens every time you fill up your gas tank than you would inhaling second hand smoke for a year. ra
Yup. It amazes me when I see health nuts jogging on streets breathing the car exhaust fumes deeply into their lungs...deeper than a guy smoking a joint and holding in the smoke.
Then they turn around and blame 2nd hand smoke for the related illnesses that pop up years later.
-
not to mention all the other health risks..
the food most American's eat is right up there,
lack of excercise-obesity etc etc
oh.. it's McDonald's fault..
or Phillip Morris
or probably soon Evian or something...
personally, I still like the no smoking law :)
most local business owners do too.. since the law passed and they 'booted' the smokers, sales and business has gone UP !
Seems there are more non-smokers that want to spend money in the bars than smokers.. hmmm
of course the smokers do have an alternative besides freezing their butts off outisde.. go to Aspen where you can smoke to your heart's desire
-
The smoking ban in public places was put into place under the guise of protecting the rights of workers from hazardous working conditions. Basically it's just like requiring guards or safety switches on machinery and has nothing to do with individual rights.
The problem with "allowing" people to waive their workers' rights and work in places that allow smoking is that "waiving" rights would become an unspoken condition for employment.
As far as second hand smoke goes, babies of women who smoke during pregnacy have lower birth weight babies and children where smoking is allowed in the home suffer from more respatory ailments than children who are raised in non smoking homes.
-
Wlfgng: actually our laws say a restaraunt IS a public place owned by a private person. big difference.
Right - depriving a person from free use of his property means depriving him of his freedom. Freedom by definition is unrestricted disposal of one's domain and ability to transfer that domain voluntarily.
We are not discussing the legality of the act in this thread - the smoking ban was as certainly legal according to our laws as gassing the jews was in nazi germany. Or declaring women public property in some communist experiments. Majority wish and such.
Toad: You're free to smoke. You're just not free to cause someone else to smoke your cig with you.
Absolutely, so preventing a people from voluntarily congregaring on private property for smoking but allowing them to smoke on public property like street violates freedoms of property owners and pedestrians.
Suave: Stupid people pass stupid laws.
Not that simple. The people are not stupid. They just have different values. And respect for freedom or life free form despotism is not one of them. In fact, most of them just believe that society is a primary entity consisting of insignificant cogs ratehr than collection of individuals with their needs and desires. So they act in the interests of such society - as they see them.
miko
-
Second hand smoke causes 100,000 cases of cancer each year. I'm all for smoking, just as long as I don't have to breathe the putrid, cancer-causing smoking that smokers force upon other people.
-
To extrapolate a bit on Toad's analogy, (or maybe distort is a better word) I'd be satisfied if it was legal to punch a smoker in the nose everytime I was assaulted by his foul stench.
-
davidpt40: Second hand smoke causes 100,000 cases of cancer each year.
Obviously, making anyone inhale other people's smoke against their will is a violation and intrusion. We should really stop it.
As a consolation for now, look at the benefits you get. Those people who die from cancer - a majority of them - die relatively inexpensively when their productive years are over and from benefit to society they become a burden.
You do not have to subcidise their extremely expensive old-age healthcare, social security/pension benefits, share overcrowded roads with them - and smoke fumes from their cars. Let alone risk accident caused by senile people. Their children can work productively and/or have more grandchildren rather than wasting time/resources/sanity overseing slow decay of their senile parents.
Also, this way the people less resistant to addition tend to remove themselves from the gene-pool this way - reducing the chance that your grand-grand child will inherit their genes and will more likely be an addict, alcoholic, etc.
Oh, and the sheer amount of smoking-related cancer cases makes cost-effective the cancer research that benefits the rest of us who can get other cases of cancer - too rare to be worth a research by themselves.
As long as it's voluntary and non-intrusive, smoking is fine with me.
miko
-
last Nov election we passed a no smokin law too
cept in stand alone bars
I & anyone I know voted for it
-
AKIron: To extrapolate a bit on Toad's analogy, (or maybe distort is a better word) I'd be satisfied if it was legal to punch a smoker in the nose everytime I was assaulted by his foul stench.
More productive would be to design some harmless gaseous compound that would turn into vile skunky intolerable stuff after passing through the burning sigarette into the smoker's mouth.
Any chemist's out there?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[B As a consolation for now, look at the benefits you get. Those people who die from cancer - a majority of them - die relatively inexpensively when their productive years are over and from benefit to society they become a burden.
[/B]
You're kidding right?!? Health care costs for diseases such as heart disease and lung cancer can cost more than the idividual may have paid in taxes his whole life. Who pays for that?
-
the smoking ban was as certainly legal according to our laws as gassing the jews was in nazi germany.
yeah that's comparable... NOT
-
Again...it isn't smoking that is the point here.
I have read all about Americans having the right to bear firearms..ad nauseum. I have also seen those same gun owners snipe at Beet1e's home country laws that were put in place to try to protect the community from gun crime. Mr. Toad, as already mentioned, suggested that knives should be banned as they are just as dangerous somehow. These snipes were all in an effort to show up Britain as trying to nanny or "coddle" its citizenship.
Now we have a law being passed in New York...and countrywide by the sounds of it...which is nothing but a great big nanny job.
..and those same gun owners are here in support of it.
Consistancy in your arguments would be nice..that's all.
...oh, and by the way...they tried this anti-smoking law thingy in Toronto a few years back. The drop in bar and restaurant patronage forced a repeal of those laws.
I give it a year in New York.
-
I give it a year in New York.
I agree.. it (smoking ban) only really works well where the people want it (I.E. here).
there are probably more atheletes here per capita than most places.. and more people that do not smoke than average. (in the US)
so it's supported by most that live here
now the New Yorkers that visit squeak a bit.. but they soon get the hint
-
Curval, a couple of points tho if I may- The smoking ban is not a ban on posession of cigarettes, it's simply a ban on endangering the health of workers in a workplace. People will still have the right to smoke, just will no longer have the right to endanger the health of workers in restaurants, bars, whatever.
A gun ban seeks to remove guns entirely from a society. For a smoking ban to be comperable to a gun ban we would have to ban the sale and posession of cigarettes entirely.
A better example of a "nannying" law might be helmet laws, assuming a "nannying" law is imposed because "it's for our own good." Personally I don't run while carrying scissors in my house and I don't need "Big Mama," the successor to "Big Brother," reminding me not to.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
A better example of a "nannying" law might be helmet laws, assuming a "nannying" law is imposed because "it's for our own good."
I agree, but unfortunately Yahoo didn't have an article on that topic today.
;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
To extrapolate a bit on Toad's analogy, (or maybe distort is a better word) I'd be satisfied if it was legal to punch a smoker in the nose everytime I was assaulted by his foul stench.
If I am in your house, your car or an inclosed space that you have no option in which to be, I could agree.
Outside, in a public space or a consensual meeting spot where such activity is allowed.... well, ya welcome to try ;)
-
agree with airhead... a better example would be helmet laws.. Federal government strongarmed the states into passing those laws... same for seatbelt laws.
smoking... well... I think private property should be... private property but... if it is a workmans comp issue then I can see some point to banning smoking in a private place.... I had not heard what MT said about if you have no employees then the ban does not apply... this seems very sensible.
lazs
-
AKIron: You're kidding right?!? Health care costs for diseases such as heart disease and lung cancer can cost more than the idividual may have paid in taxes his whole life.
I am not kidding. I do not wish for any people to die but if we rationally discuss costs to society, death from smoking-related cancer is less expensive then other kinds - in many cases. Actual studies were done to that effect.
All people die from something sooner or later. Even a person in perfect health dies from general deterioration of tissues - slowly, painfully and expensively. Keeping a stroke-afflicted person on life-suport costs millions and lasts for years.
Of course the situation changes with scientific progress and locality. As new treatments are found that allow to keep smokers alive longer, the expense mounts. So while a smoke-related cancer case may be a drain on US society - though I find it hard to believe - for Hungary, where such treatment is not commonly available it's a huge savings.
AKIron: Who pays for that?
That is another violation of liberty - coercing people to subcidise someone else's destructive habits or lifestyle/religious choices. The whole thing was originally intended as a safety net for few people who fall. Now it is used for people who jump intentionally. Wasting resources on self-destructive elderly unproductive people that could have been used for the next generation.
And there is such a concept as "moral hazard" - by ameliorating consequences of people's irresponcible behavior you cause them to behave more irresponcibly.
No wonder that european-derived population is going extinct.
Wlfgng: yeah that's comparable... NOT
They had to start somewhere but it's a necessary process. Forcing collectivized healthcare on people and then taking control of with people's lifes because it costs money to the system is just a step in development of collectivism. Sure, if the master pays for the healthcare of the serfs, he is entitled to a say in their behavior.
Curval: ..and those same gun owners are here in support of it.
What gives you that idea? There are relatively few gun owners in liberal New York and those I know all oppose the regulation.
it's simply a ban on endangering the health of workers in a workplace
The workers are free to choose employment. There are plenty of risky occupations. Stewardesses get increased doze of radiation. Do you really need to fly on vacation? Maybe we should limit air-travel to (state approved) business trips - all for the people.
Police risk their life saving you - so a curfiew is in order. No people out at night, no healthcare expenses. It's not like you really need to go out. Of course if you do, you can apply for a special pass.
miko
-
miko... I see your point but if it is a workmans comp issue then there is nothing to be done about it.. every day private places have to comply with restrictive (to personal freedom) laws in the workplace. I don't wish to wear a hardhat in "hardhat areas" or safety glasses or hearing protection or... post msds sheets all over the place. If a worker is brave enough (or broke enough) to climb down into a poorly shored and possible gaseous hole in the earth then I guess it is ok for the employer to allow it on his property?
I believe in the case of a family owned business with no employees there is no workmans comp issue involved. So long as it was clearly posted that smoking was taking place inside.... no one would have a right to squeak. It would seem that a bar that had smoking would do a thriving business... Is that true MT?
lazs
-
. It would seem that a bar that had smoking would do a thriving business... Is that true MT?
It's not the busiest place in town, but it does OK for a small bar. The salesmen like it.
-
lazs2: If a worker is brave enough (or broke enough) to climb down into a poorly shored and possible gaseous hole in the earth then I guess it is ok for the employer to allow it on his property?
Speaking generally, I would prefer such situation to one where we are ruled by arbitrary decisions of a despot. Once personal freedom becomes unimportant, you are on a necessary path to despotism. And onece people become cogs in a state machine, quite a few of them will be sent into risky/unhealthy situations for the "common good". I am from Soviet Union, remember? People were sent into "poorly shored and possible gaseous hole in the earth" all the time there. Politicians make personal safety an issue to get power for the state. They may even mean it - though their inconsistency is obvious. If people are too stupid to decide their own safety issues, how can you expect them to vote in a worthy individual as a ruler? Anyway, once the power is there, other uses will be found for it, with nice justifications for every step.
Less generaly, free state must be based on the sanctity of the contract and prevention of fraud - as well as protection of property and prevention of violence.
So if a worker completely understands implications of his actions, fine. But if a case can be made that an owner was expected to provide certain level of safety - in explicit or implicit contract - and failed to do so, such an individual can and must be punished in a free society.
It's just that every well-informed person should be allowed to make his own choices based on his circumstances. Yes, there must be disclosure and information and testing provided and State can play role in contracting and dissiminating it. But action and decision should be people's prerogatives, not bureaucrats'.
miko
-
Curval, now you can see why we are so protective of our 2nd Amendment rights. Because it's clear to us that the safety nazis are out to take away every freedom they deem too risky or unneccesary.
-
....... hate cigarette smoke.
-
Curval, I think I view freedom from a different point of view.
I'm free to NOT smoke right? My choice?
The smoker is free to smoke; his choice.
But if I'm in an enclosed space with a smoker and he chooses to smoke, my choice is removed. I'm breathing smoke.
Now, if the smoker is in an unconfied space, we BOTH have a choice. He can smoke and I can move away into a clear area.
Better that both have freedom than just one.
Here in my area, restaurants simply have smoking and non-smoking sections. No problemo, all are happy.
And here, as someone pointed out about another place, you'll wait twice as long for a table in the no smoking area as the smoking area.
But all are free to choose. They smoke if they like, they don't smoke if they don't like, they don't worry about what the other guy chooses. It's a free life. :D
-
Curval - LOL! That's great going. The thread extends to two pages in less than 24 hours. I think that beats my record. WTG!
I will go and read it all now, and may post back...
-
Hehe Curval - great way to start the New Year! I see I can take a couple of days off!
I don't really have an axe to grind. I do remember revisiting New York City in 1995, and finding that all restaurants in the city were smoke free. That was such a welcome change from Europe - especially countries like France, Spain and Italy where they seem to have a lot of smokers. I could walk into a restaurant in NYC without banging my nose into a wall of smoke. The whole dining experience was so much better. I never saw anyone violate the smoking ban, and I never heard anyone complain about it.
But in CA, where there is a ban on smoking even in bars, I have seen people smoking overtly, right at the bar.
Not sure whether the New York law is nannying, as I believe that smokers have been in a minority for many years, so it's arguable that the law change is to benefit the majority.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Curval, I think I view freedom from a different point of view.
Here in my area, restaurants simply have smoking and non-smoking sections. No problemo, all are happy.
I think we view it exactly the same way Toad.
I agree with smoking and non smoking sections...it gives both parties the freedom to do as they wish.
In New York it is an accross the board elimination of the rights of smokers, in favour of the non smokers. Why? Because it is being done to protect the non smokers.
Nannying at it finest.
:)
Beet1e...just doing my bit. :D
Funked...best answer in this thread. Consistency at its finest. (hehe on the sig)
-
miko... I am from an earlier time in the U.S. we did a lot of things that weren't particularly safe on construction sites. I seen a lot of bad accidents that could easily have been avoided by taking a few precautions and/or using proper equipment...I don't know the answer. I don't like government intgerferance either because it tends to run amuck... our safety programs are like that now... run amuck... I would prefer that the employer do it voluntarily or that the workers demand/negotiate for it. smoking... tough one. I believe that if the owner of a building posts that it is a "smoking" place then fine but.... How would he get around the workmans comp thing? It is required to have workmans comp insurance. I like what motels are doing... they have smoking and non smoking rooms... most have voluntarily converted to non because of lack of interest in smoking rooms.
curval and beetle... I think the point has been well made why smoking and guns are such different issues freedom wise... thank you for again providing a forum for gun owners to show how silly and idiotic the oppossition is.
when in england I had people constantly blowing smoke at me through their rotted and yellowed teeth everywhere I went. I had no freedom to avoid em. I don't care if people smoke so long as it isn't around me.
lazs
-
I've smoked for 25 years....I don't like smoke blown in my own face much less making anyone else deal with my habit.
I'm ok with all of these laws as I'm free to do business with the establishments that allow smoking. Now when they tell me I cannot smoke outside, that will become an issue for me personally.
-
when in england I had people constantly blowing smoke at me through their rotted and yellowed teeth everywhere I went.
Laz, I am sending you my medical bills for one busted gut.
-
When they tell yu that you can't smoke outside... not bothering anyone... I will join u. If they tell you that you can't smoke in your own huse I will join you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
In New York it is an accross the board elimination of the rights of smokers, in favour of the non smokers. Why? Because it is being done to protect the non smokers.
Frame it this way, Curval:
In New York it is an accross the board restriction of the rights of smokers indoors in public places like restaurants, in favour of the non smokers. Why? Because it is being done to protect the non smokers freedom of choice.
No one lost any Constitutionally guaranteed rights here. Two things have happened: The non-smokers have been allowed to choose not to smoke. The smokers have been restricted to smoking in areas that do not remove a non-smokers choice.
"Nannying" would be banning smoking altogether and although I don't smoke, even I'd protest that.
-
Laz, I am sending you my medical bills for one busted gut.
hehe - ra is gutless, in case you didn't know. ;)
-
Heard on the radio this morning that Norway is going smokeless for the entire country... in restaurants and public places anyhow... not just restrictions of the local nanny governments of the US.
-
Originally posted by Curval
freedom (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021230/ap_on_re_us/ny_vice_laws_1)
I have read all about how free you are in the US to buy guns and to shoot them.
Seems like New York is taking a big bite out of the freedom of people to smoke...even in bars.
I thought the US was the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Your not scared of guns....just cigarettes?
(whizzzzzzzzzzz...plonk...the lure is set)
-
Originally posted by Curval
freedom (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021230/ap_on_re_us/ny_vice_laws_1)
I have read all about how free you are in the US to buy guns and to shoot them.
Seems like New York is taking a big bite out of the freedom of people to smoke...even in bars.
I thought the US was the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Your not scared of guns....just cigarettes?
(whizzzzzzzzzzz...plonk...the lure is set)
This one is simple. You freedom ends at the begining of my nose.
Its about respect for others.
You cant just go and shoot weapons off wherever the hell you want to either. Freedom is a priviledge that carry's some responsibility with it also.
(sorry for the double post)
-
Cigarettes kill more people than guns, even in the USA. And just to pre-empt Mr. Toad, cigarettes kill more people than sharp objects in the UK. To further pre-empt Mr. Toad, isn't it worth passing the new NYC smoking ban if even only ONE life can be saved? :p
One thing's for sure. No government will ban tobacco sales. There are two reasons for that: - They need the revenue from taxes levied on tobacco.
- By allowing people to smoke and thereby die much sooner, the state pensions crisis will be less severe.
-
Well, Beet, if folks want to commit voluntary inhalation suicide knowing the dangers going in... isn't that their biz?
Now, otoh, if they were stabbing and slicing other folks with their Marlboros.......
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Cigarettes kill more people than guns, even in the USA.
Cigarettes don't kill people, people kill people....
No really, ya gatta set 'em on fire and inhale....
Anybody stupid enough to suck 'em down,.....
-
It is nice that our guardians in the government look out for us so much. I really appreciate it since if I walked into a restaurant or bar with smoke, I would be too stupid to walk out if I did not want to inhale it. Why isn't it just banned outright like alcohol was at one time. Could it be because of the amount of tax revenue it brings in ? Especially in places like NYC.
Smokers cost money for healthcare but do not live that long after their productive years. So I would think that they do not live long enough for the heart operations, hip replacements,knee replacements and other costly procedures the older senior citizens have to have and probably never get put in nursing homes for extended care which is expensive. They also get off the Social Security roles earlier by dying sooner. All the studies I have seen say what smokers cost in healthcare but do not say what they would have cost if they live an extra twenty years by not smoking.
The anti-smoking governments use it as a reason for raising taxes and bringing in more revenue. The wrong reason for an anti-smoking campaign. Smoking kills people. That should be reason enough to fight it. And after all the smokers are gone, who is next. The drinkers ? The overweight people ? Junk food lovers ?
-
And after all the smokers are gone, who is next. The drinkers ?
-
Originally posted by ET
And after all the smokers are gone, who is next. The drinkers ? The overweight people ? Junk food lovers ?
C'mon, you all have heard about the guy sueing McDonalds,Burger King and KFC because he's fat... it's started already.
And don't worry Ra they tried to do the drinkers back in the 1920's... had some trouble with it tho...
-
You'd have some sort of point if when a drunk was drinking, you as a bystander got a tiny bit of the booze forced down your throat.
You'd have a point if the guy gobbling six Super Size Big Mac meals next to you foced some of the fries into your stomach.
If the guy stuffing in a dozen twinkies resulted in you having to swallow one.
I don't care who smokes or how many they smoke. I just prefer not to smoke any of their ABU (already been used) cigarette myself.
I'll cheerfully agree to their right to smoke... it they'll agree to my right NOT to smoke.
If you think about it, this is an issue of common courtesy.
-
So you are in favor of legislation mandating common courtesy?:rolleyes:
-
Nope. But I am in favor of common courtesy.
I AM in favor of a choice between a smoking and non-smoking section in confined or enclosed areas.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nope. But I am in favor of common courtesy.
I AM in favor of a choice between a smoking and non-smoking section in confined or enclosed areas.
I am opposed to allowing workers to be unnecessarily exposed to health risks, however how slight that risk might be. Smoking sections in restaurants still require waitpersons and busboys, and the purpose of all anti smoking laws to date has been to protect workers. I also believe in guards on saws, handrails on stairways and the requirement of hard hats on construction sites. OSHA is one of the few Government organizations that actually give a rat's bellybutton about the safety of citizens.
You're right on about common courtesy Toad. Perhaps if smokers were more polite us non smokers wouldn't have to pass laws sending them outdoors. :D
-
Reminds me of the old commercial from the 70's.
A person walks into a restaurant with everbody smoking, puts on a gas mask, and then pulls a skunk outta her bag :)
Clears the restaurant right out. :D
I'm a non smoker and I find nothing more disgusting than sitting down to a meal and then having someone at the table next to you lighting up because they are done theirs.
Yes they have rights, but unfortunately in society today, common courtesy is seldom exercised.
If I go into freinds homes where they smoke I dont even say a word if they light up..its their house. If I go into a public place, especially if I'm paying for a service, I expect that I am entitled to a decent time without bothering with OTHER peoples disgusting habits...Just as I promise not to exercise my disgusting habit of violent flatulism around you.
-
Toad summed it up.. there is no rebutal a smoker can give to toads reasoning.
Now.. as for smoking in public places... places paid for by the people... these smoking laws are voted on in many cases.. If they weren't.... how do you smokers suppose the vote would go?
face it... people have hated smelling your stinky ciggs (and mine back when) for years... what you now see is backlash and most non smokers are actually enjoying your indignant response..
lazs
-
Lazs,
You and Mr. Toad seem to be the authority on what is a nanny law and what isn't.
Could we get a list or something so that we can have a consensus. That way you can't keep moving the line between what is a nanny law and what isn't, to suit your arguments.
I suppose we could just say.."Any law passed in England to protect its citizens IS a nanny law....all laws passed in the US are proper and correct and do not constitute nannying.":rolleyes:
-
Noooo.... what is being said is that... shooting people that are near you randomly is bad.. blowing smoke at people around you randomly is bad.
Keep your bullets out of inocent peoples bodies and keep your smoke out of inocent peoples bodies.
and...... a lot of the smoking laws were voted on. Care to see how a vote would go on smoking? firearms in the U.S. is a constitutional gurantee and... for good reason..
What you are seeing is a backlash by the PEOPLE against smokers..
If you could smoke ciggarettes without creating smoke then I would be first up to defend your right to do so in a public place... There are no laws against chewing tobacco... just spitting. It's not the ciggarettes or the tobacco that is the issue.. it is the smoke that is being inflicted on people who don't wish to be annoyed or, harmed, by it. I am not sensitive to it but I understand that some people, especially those with resperatory problems, are badly affected. I would prefer not to smell smoke but I recognize that in a smokers car or home I have no say. I don't believe the government should either.
I am also against tobacco bans to "save lives" or to "save money" or whatever excuse a nanny government gives. I don't believe that the rest of us benifiet any more by this than by seatbelt or helmet laws.
lazs
-
.."Any law passed in England to protect its citizens IS a nanny law....all laws passed in the US are proper and correct and do not constitute nannying."
Yes, that pretty much works for me. :D
-
lazs brings up a good point.
our smoking-ban was voted on by the people...
approved by a huge margin.
The workers in the now smoke-free restaurants are happy as well. In fact, some of the restaurant and bar owners are saying it's easier to keep their wait staff on.
-
Curval, the line isn't moving. Smoking hasn't been prohibited for any "nanny" reason like saving the smokers' lives or some such.
The no smoking laws.. usually voted on as noted... merely offer the non-smokers the freedom not to smoke. Smokers can STILL smoke. They just can't smoke where it would FORCE non-smokers to smoke as well.
Repeating: Smokers are free to smoke all they like. They just can't inflict it upon non-smokers in confined areas.
-
face it smokers.... the non smokers are taking delight in watching you suffer.. they are because they put up with your crap for so many years. They really never did like having their eyes water and their clothes smell and their candy dishes used for ash trays or holes burned in everything or you passed out on the couch with a ciggarette in your mouth (ooops.. that was me).
They think you are a rude piece or toejam and they are glad you are upset... it's really that simple.
lazs
-
What happened to smoking and non-smoking sections?
Nannying is the blanket abolition of smoking in restaurants and bars...which is happening in New York according to what I read.
-
Nope. Nannying would be BANNING SMOKING.
Who's being "nannied" in NYC? Generally, "nannying" as we've all referred to it here in the OC is when government does something to protect you from yourself. At least that's my interpretation.
The non-smokers aren't being protected from themselves.
The smokers aren't being protected from themselves either. They can still smoke all they like.
-
oh you're gonna love this...
the "Pueblo Taliban"...
in some places the smoking ban isn't gonna work...
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1084609%257E,00.html
-
It's illegal to walk in public buildings barefoot because of the possibility to spread infectious germs. It is not illegal to be barefoot elsewhere.
It's against state health code in most states to return to a salad bar with the same plate filled the first time, because of the possibility of spreading infectious germs. You can return for seconds, thirds, fourths, whatever at home.
It's against state health code in most states to enter a public pool without showering first. You can enter your pool at home right after rolling in cow pies, if you like.
You can carry a concealed gun in public only with a special permit. You can own all the guns you like at home.
See a pattern?
-
Copyright 1998 THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"Pseudoscience Going Up in Smoke"
by Michael Fumento
It was the farce that launched a thousand bans. In 1993, the EPA released a study ranking passive smoking at the top of its carcinogen pecking order. It did so based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 American studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: "Passive Smoking Kills Thousands," and editorials demanding: "Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It's a Killer."
Suddenly, smokers found themselves ranked below child-molesting lepers. The crusade against smoking in public places assumed ludicrous dimensions, culminating with President Clinton trying to ban it not just in federal buildings but anywhere near them.
Yet since the EPA's hour of glory, it's been battling not just (predictably enough) the tobacco companies, but also the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and myriad scientists and science journalists. It ignored them all, but has now run into an unmoveable object in the form of a federal judge, who ruled that the agency's report ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices in making its risk assessment.
This has no direct effect on legislation, but may prompt repeals of some legislation and hold off the implementation of new anti-smoking laws. Although the EPA's report had more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese under assault by a ravenous mouse, its greatest weakness was its refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only 5 chances in 100 that the conlcusion came about simply by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.
Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw. Why would it do such a strange thing? Yup. Because its results weren't signficant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal post to the three-yard line because the football had fallen two yards short of a touchdown. There's a technical scientific term for this kind of action--dishonesty.
The EPA report was scientifically at or below the level of anything ever put out by the Tobacco Institute. It was also a harbinger of EPA games to come. For example, when it comes to radon, the agency has simply ignored the overwhelming number of household epidemiological studies showing no harm from the gas at low levels, instead choosing to extrapolate down from men exposed to massive amounts of radon each day for years in uranium mines.
In promulgating new air pollution regulations last year, again the EPA ignored the majority of epidemiological studies showing no connection between harm and the pollutants in question, instead relying on a few studies by "advocacy scientists" (one a former EPA employee).
As to passive smoking, two more meta-analyses have appeared since the EPA's. One was conducted on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO) in seven counties over seven years. When it appeared, the tobacco industry claimed it supported their position, and WHO squealed like a pig going to slaughter. "Passive smoking does cause lung cancer--Do not let them fool you.," blared its press release.
No, it was WHO trying to fool you. Its study also found no statistical significance at a 95 percent level. So the press release just ignored the whole issue of significance altogether.
The third meta-analysis, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found slight statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer, meaning 41 did not.
Further, the combined increased risk was merely 24 percent, also called a "relative risk" of 1.24.
Such tiny relative risks are generally considered meaningless, given the myriad pitfalls in epidemiological studies. "As a general rule of thumb," says the editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, "we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more" before accepting a paper for publication. "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it, says Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.
Explains the National Cancer Institute: "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident."
The main exception to that rule comes when the study is extremely large, but such was not the case with the BMJ analysis. The studies showing excess disease comprised a mere 1,388 persons. By contrast, a recent study implicating obesity as a cause of early death contained more than 320,000 subjects.
So where does this leave us? Do we know passive smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? No. But we know that either it does not or that if it does the risk is so tiny as to be unmeasureable. Does this mean passive smoke poses no health risks? No. It makes sense it would aggravate athsma and other breathing problems, if nothing else. Does it mean that just because smokers aren't murdering other people, they're not still engaging in a nasty, expensive habit that greatly increases their own chance of sickness and premature death? Definitely not.
Ultimately, the EPA study tells us a lot less about passive smoking than it does about the basic dishonesty of the agency in charge of protecting our environmental health.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nope. Nannying would be BANNING SMOKING.
Then the issue of guns in England is not nannying either. You can own a gun, you just have to join a club and keep it there. They are not BANNED.
-
if you are a member of a gun club (as you describe) is the club the only place you can fire your weapon ?
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
if you are a member of a gun club (as you describe) is the club the only place you can fire your weapon ?
I assume so...it certainly is the case here.
If we could shoot guns anywhere we wanted to sooner or later we'd have a bunch of dead Canadians lying about the island...you can't "swing a dead cat" on this island without hitting a Canadian.:D
-
Originally posted by Curval
Then the issue of guns in England is not nannying either. You can own a gun, you just have to join a club and keep it there. They are not BANNED.
That's like being allowed to have a car but only being allowed to drive it on a closed course and never bring it home... basically the posession of guns by private citizens in England is banned if they are chained to the bench at the target range like BB guns at a carnival shooting gallery.
-
So the EPA study showed a 90% chance of being statistically correct instead of a 95% chance.
That sounds like something to hang your soot encrusted lungs on. Great piece of spin there JBA.
-
If we could shoot guns anywhere we wanted to sooner or later we'd have a bunch of dead Canadians lying about the island...you can't "swing a dead cat" on this island without hitting a Canadian.
LMAO!
um.. which Island ?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
That's like being allowed to have a car but only being allowed to drive it on a closed course and never bring it home...
....or sort of like having a cigarette and being told where and when to smoke it. Correct.
-
except they can take their ciggies home and smoke them there.
-
Nope. I own an acre of land outside the city limits. If I have a critter problem (some skunks started making trouble last summer) I can whip out the rifle and end the problem. Heck, they don't even have to be in season! Clean the rifle, put it away in MY HOUSE. I can even celebrate the demise of said critter by lighting up a post-murdering spree cigarette right there on my property if I am so inclined.
Sorry Curval, that straw man is incredibly easy to torch.
-
What of the poor unfortunate city dwellers that have critter problems. The rules fit you nicely Kieran, but if you lived in Manhattan and were faced with a New York sewer rat infestation..well then , I guess you would have to call in an exterminator, right? You are NOT ALLOWED to fire weapons within city limits.
This is done for the protection of the city dwellers...aka nannying again....I don't think it is necessarily right...but there it is.
Fact is that guns are not TOTALLY BANNED in the UK which Toad claims to be the hair splitting factor in his defense of the recent nannying smoking laws of New York. They aren't.
-
in New York, one can't fire a gun in their own home ?
to stop an intruder say... ?
-
Wrong again, Curval. I can own that gun in NYC, I just have to get a permit if I want to carry it around with me. There would be a city ordinance against firing it within city limits, but that is an ordinance voted upon by the populace of the city, not a Federal mandate.
Try again.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
There would be a city ordinance against firing it within city limits
Nanny city ordinance then.
I'm not wrong. If you fired that weapon to rid yourself of critters in New York you would be charged..according to you even that is a fact.
But, it is irrelevant to what we are talking about anyway. Toad claimed that the gun laws in Britain are nanny laws because they totally ban guns and that because the New York smoking laws still allow you to smoke those anti-smoking laws are NOT nanny laws.
I have just pointed out that guns are NOT totally banned in Britain. They AREN'T...so by his own logic the British laws are not nanny laws.
Yes it is a question of semantics...but if you accuse someone or a nation of something and I think you are being hypocritical then I will say so....and I'm saying so.
-
this is precious.... I know of no state that bans firearms or cigarettes. You can't smoke in a lot of states in public buildings because you will contaminate other people with your pollution. You can't fire guns in most crowded areas unless your life is at risk because of the danger of your bullet hitting an inocent bystander.
in limeyland they not only will end up banning cigs entirely but they already have banned firearms. You may not posses one in your home. In the U.S. you may smoke in your home and have a firearm in your home. If you are attacked in your home in the U.S. you can simply shoot the perpetrator... If you are attacked in limeyland in your home you are free to run away screaming like a little girl.
lazs
-
what CAN one do to defend themselves in Britain ?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You can't smoke in a lot of states in public buildings because you will contaminate other people with your pollution.
A bar is not a public building if I own it...as we have already determined. If I own that bar and earn my living from people drinking disgusting liquid fermented from rotting grains (alcohol) and smoking disgusting plants while doing so then what right does any form of government have to take that away from me? If you don't want to smoke while drinking you are free to run from the smoke like a little girley and go and find yourself a nice "Martini Bar" which caters to the sqeamish. ;)
Also, as already mentioned, they tried this New York nanny law in Toronto (Canadians are obviously about 5-10 years ahead of the US in this regard) and it was the bar and restaurant owners who had it overturned.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
what CAN one do to defend themselves in Britain ?
It is called a "Cricket Bat". Nevermind what you see at a Cricket game...the real purpose is for dealing with intruders.
-
Originally posted by Curval
It is called a "Cricket Bat". Nevermind what you see at a Cricket game...the real purpose is for dealing with intruders.
Curval, don't let the British Home Office hear that or they'll force you to keep your cricket bats at supervised cricket clubs where it's necessary to call for an appointment three days ahead of time before you can go there and use your bat. Of course technically that wouldn't be a ban tho.......;)
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Curval, don't let the British Home Office hear that or they'll force you to keep your cricket bats at supervised cricket clubs where it's necessary to call for an appointment three days ahead of time before you can go there and use your bat. Of course technically that wouldn't be a ban tho.......;)
LOL...well said Sir...the last sentance in particular.;)
-
lol
can you put spikes on your 'cricket' bat ? ;)
er... I mean.... uh... ball 'grippers'
-
Well now... if I have to choose between a nanny at the federal level and one at the city level, I'll take the city level.
What you are not owning up to is the comparison between cigarettes and guns isn't apples and apples- hell, it isn't even fruit and fruit.
It's actually backward for you... you can own your gun in one particular place in the UK; in the US, there are only particular places you cannot have your guns.
In the US, there are only particular places you can't have your cigarettes.
The UK seems to take a sweeping approach to eliminating anything, whereas the US tends (heavy emphasis on "tends") to make it more case or situationally dependent. So... which place treats you more like an adult?
-
Nah, Curval.
"Nanny" is when they take something away from YOU because it isn't good for YOU. That's the difference.
You can smoke tobacco all you like. The laws don't deal with your right to smoke.
The Brits and Aussies lost their freedom to own guns because government decided it was "too dangerous" for civilians to own guns. Oh, some few guns are allowed but many are completely banned or heavily restricted.
No US government at Federal, State or Local level has said ANYTHING like that about tobacco. Tobacco isn't banned at all.