Smoking, same rights as free speech?

C'mon Dopey....... Just taking shots at others doesn't show much...well, except your bare ass. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'll leave the irony for others to figure out.

I'll leave the irony for others to figure out. Originally Posted by Doove

I'm tired and don't feel like looking for any irony. I'll just stick to trying to figure out how deep you plan on digging your hole.

Decided to remove.... Originally Posted by Woody of TX

It does take time doesn't it pal.

Just noticed your reference to tsml and 1998. I've been trying to remember when I started...but it gets a bit fuzzy.

So tell me...about what year did Sandy, who helped bring the place down, show up? What was that guy's name?...the guy who ran it? Damn, my memory.

I'll leave the irony for others to figure out. Originally Posted by Doove

Yeah, that's about what I figured. All hat...no cattle.

I'll leave the irony for others to figure out. Originally Posted by Doove

Dopey, I may just be an uneducated southern field worker (or not)....but what RK & they rest of us, with our limited cognitive abilities, can't figure out is what your actual POV is....I mean the deflection and answering questions with questions is charming to a point, but what is your POV on the original question? More than one of us have waded thru your 15+ posts and can't figure it out. Enlighten us.

Come on, if a smoke free environment is so important, why not enforce it like no socks, no shoes no service. I think there is a reason that many proprietors don't and it is either their best customers don't mind and they don't see that big a drop off because they allow it. Myself, I always choose the nonsmoking areas and I speak up if someone "cheats". But to disallow a privately owned establishment to cater to a group that is engaging in something that is legal is ludicrous.

In San Antonio they are talking about banning smoking outside. This is the type of thinking that leads to one community to ban Happy Meals at McDonalds because it induces kids to eat unhealthy. Their reasoning is that it puts too much pressure on parents to say no. At some point the line needs to be drawn between personal responsibility and some wako administrator dictating how you get to live your life in the land of the free. I can envision a country that started a revolution about unfair taxes on tea from being banned from drinking tea because it has caffeine!

I can envision a country that started a revolution about unfair taxes on tea from being banned from drinking tea because it has caffeine! Originally Posted by oden

I'm not sure if that was original but it was great...if it was I request permission to borrow it

I'm not sure if that was original but it was great...if it was I request permission to borrow it Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Granted

Dopey, Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Oh look, another stunted adult.

but what is your POV on the original question? More than one of us have waded thru your 15+ posts and can't figure it out. Enlighten us.

Seriously? Alright, let me spell it out for you:

1)And how, exactly, does blowing cigarette smoke in my direction while i'm trying to eat dinner in a public restaurant show a respect for my rights?

It comes down to this. You're either going to take away someone's right to be an inconsiderate baboon and smoke wherever they please (if there even is such a thing), or you're going to take away someone's right to have a clean air environment that's not f'd up by someone's appalling lack of consideration and common sense (again, if there even is such a thing).

I think it's painfully obvious which of those rights is more deserving of being preserved.

2)Sometimes i can't help but think that the people who bitch the loudest about the things that government does would be the people bitching the loudest if the government wasn't around to do the things it does. Because they just like to bitch.

3)Replace the term "tort" with the term "bills", and you've got a perfect argument FOR mandated health insurance. Thanks PJ.

At which point PJ got his panties in a bunch and started putting words in my mouth so he could argue with himself. But i digress.

A bit off topic, but:

4)Mandating that emergency rooms must treat people regardless of ability to pay is as much an argument that health care is a "right" as anything i'm aware of. Guess which bleeding heart liberal icon signed that little piece of legislation? Hint: His initials stand for Ronald Reagan.

5)True, but at least his (PJ's) shrieking kids comparison was better than his blue car nonsense.

6)Perfect!

This whole thread reminds me of the old Steve Martin line:

"You mind if i smoke?"
"You mind if i fart in your face?"

The problem here isn't over-reaching government. The problem here is people being so ignorant and inconsiderate that they need to have common manners legislated to them.

7)Oh my God, PJ actually makes a point in this thread that has some legitimate logical reasoning to it. Let me address it, if i may.

If a business of any kind permitted an air quality environment equivalent to what exists in a room full of cigarette smoke, that business would likely face OSHA sanctions, as well as a visit from the board of health if it were a business open to the public. So the poor air quality for it's customers and employees should not be excused simply because that air environment is caused not by it's own actions, but by the inconsiderate and ill-mannered actions of it's customers. And unfortunately, since the owners of the business will not police their customers, and more to your point, the customers will not police themselves, there needs to be a law.

So again, there's a difference between unruly kids, or most other ill mannered behaviors, and smoking in a bar or restaurant. It's a pretty easy concept to comprehend so you need to be asked, why do you not get this?

8)I didn't warp anything. I'm not one harping on the 2nd hand smoke argument, valid as i think it is. I'm pointing out that there's a vast difference between the annoyance caused by smoking and the annoyance caused by unruly kids. And there is. In more ways than one.

If you don't want laws against unruly kids, fine. When one is passed, complain about it. This is not a law against unruly kids, nor is it a law against red or green or yellow or silver or black or white or fuchsia colored cars.

9)Ok, so maybe i got a little ahead of myself. But seriously, how old are you?

10)He's sure cranky enough. I'll leave it at that.

Now excuse me while i go to a restaurant and masturbate. Oh wait, the government says i can't.

So dude, if you can't figure out where i stand, then there's more truth to the humor in your post than you realize.

As to Rudyard, in 6 posts he made actual points in only 2 of them, while using 3 of the other 4 for no other reason than to hurl insults. Add in the insult he threw out in 1 of the posts he also actually made a point in, and he's 4 for 6. Which seems to be a typical ratio for him. All the while he goes around posting things like this:

Just taking shots at others doesn't show much.

And this:

Yeah, that's about what I figured. All hat...no cattle.

But don't worry Rudyard - Aunt Ansley will protect you.

I think we should be able to smoke Cuban cigars and a whole lot more for that matter!

This is not a Federal ban.....it is a local ban from community to community, so all you state rights cowboys just getting whatca ask for. Vote your local city council member out if he ain't smoking what you're smoking!

Although I am not a cigarette smoker, I find it wrong to say that one can't smoke in a bar or restaurant. I would prefer that the establishment declare that they are smoking or nonsmoking and I will choose to frequent them or not. The same goes if I wanted to work for a smoking establishment or visit a provider that smoked or permitted smoking in their incall.

Where does government get the notion that they have the right to decide these things? I don't frequent places that have heavy smoke because I don't want to smell like smoke when I return to work or home and smell that way ,but why should that not mean that people that do like to smoke should have nowhere to go?. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke, quit going around it and if places are losing money because of it, they will adapt or go out of business. Originally Posted by oden

Just read some of these replies, and you'll see why the government does pretty much what they want. The anti-smokers got what they wanted, I'd say "PUBLIC" health has been protected, they won their case, Us smokers have seen the error of our ways and are complying. (We also think,now, its a just law, or I do and most of the smokers I know do to) But now the Gov't has stepped over the line and thinks that "Individual"
health is in their mandate. They keep turning the thumbs screws on our right to even smoke. And eventually they will, I believe, make it a controlled substance. Most Americans will say nothing and the Anti-smoking health nuts will jump for joy. And another little personnel freedom just bit the dust. They been doing it to the Constitution and the Bill of rights for years. One of these days,people, words like I just said will get you shot.

What is the argument?

Do you people see that the government makes no sense. It is all about the money. No different than the game.

In 1988, the federal government outlawed Lawn Darts for pete's sake, because some people are fucking stupid not to kill each other with them.

But cigarettes, which were engineered to be most addictive substance on earth and causes cancer and a host of other poor health conditions is okay.

You want rights, but you also want protection.

You are arguing for the wrong shit. I wish they would outlaw cigs.

and I am a smoker, too!


Wake up and smell the coffee! Just don't do it out of a Styrofoam cup.

And I'm guessing you have peer reviewed medical research showing that occasionally eating in a restuarant that allows smoking in a designated section does produce cancer. Because that's what we are talking about here. Originally Posted by pjorourke

There is peer review epidemiological evidence that second hand smoke cause some additional cases of cancer, albeit a small number. I'm not aware of what the dosing requirement is. However, cancer is not the only disease at issue. You have emphysema, asthma, etc. which can be either caused by, or caused to become symptomatic by, second hand smoke.

If you all really want to look at this issue…without a predetermined outcome…you need to read this website. Particularly read “Statistics 101”, Statistics 102”, “EPA ‘93” and “WHO”.


I recognize that most dissenters don’t really care about the facts. They don’t like it…they don’t want to be around it…it annoys them…so using the perceived second hand smoke ruse suits their purpose.

But the facts don’t really support the perception. And it is no more valid than saying hookers and johns engage in a high risk lifestyle which, when they interact with the non-hobby world, endangers the population as a whole. Most in the world would believe such a statement, and take it at face value, with very little sound statistical evidence to support such.


If you are really interested in facts…you will find this enlightening. Sadly, I think most are not.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Amazing. It's "The Facts," yet it doesn't mention asthma. Imagine that. Well I have asthma and I can tell you for a fact, not to mention voluminous medical literature that exists, that smoke in any form can easily set off an asthma attack. But it's the by God FACTS!!

Oh, and Tushy, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about nightclubs...do the operators have an obligation to serve the "ugly people" or is it ok for them to discriminate as to their clientele, just letting in attractive people or those with a celebrity status? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

One supposes if a crowd disproportionately composed of attractive people constituted a verifiable risk of disease over a more representative crowd, yes.

Well I have asthma and I can tell you for a fact, not to mention voluminous medical literature that exists, that smoke in any form can easily set off an asthma attack. But it's the by God FACTS!!



One supposes if a crowd disproportionately composed of attractive people constituted a verifiable risk of disease over a more representative crowd, yes. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Well that explains Tushy...poor guy has a medical condition...the rest of us ought to curtail our behavior (& rights) so Tushy is okay....our liberties be damned....

And back to the club question...either you don't get it or you are dodging it...

They smoke like chimneys there.....bon voyage