Fallout from a smoking ban!!!
- Thread starter Snapshot9
- Start date
My Shot
My shot at libertarians.... btw this has become very NPR.
Libertarians are the product of the me generation. They don't care about the people society has left behind, they complain about high taxes and excessive government, but are also the first to complain about bad roads and other taxpayer paid infrastructure.
They want it all but don't want to pay for it.
chefjeff said:
My shot at libertarians.... btw this has become very NPR.
Libertarians are the product of the me generation. They don't care about the people society has left behind, they complain about high taxes and excessive government, but are also the first to complain about bad roads and other taxpayer paid infrastructure.
They want it all but don't want to pay for it.
Neil said:
Ayuh.....Because, don'tcha know, SO MANY people are exposed to cancer causing inhalation agents in their work. Yup, I'm pretty sure that ALL THOSE people that are exposed to these inhalation agents are enough to skew the data a whole..What? 1.5% or something like that?
And you lied to the doctor.... NICE. Not the smartest thing to do. But, I would expect nothing less from someone who believes that it is a smoker's god-given right to smoke inside an enclosed area rather than step 2 feet out a door. No matter the fact that they KNOW there are nonsmokers around.
But I realize your reason for that. You figure if the nonsmokers are hanging around places where a lot of smoking goes on, they ENJOY the smoke.
Oh yeah, why not answer my question about why you lied in reference to the American Cancer Society? When you tell an outright LIE like that to support your view, then people like me will look with a doubtful eye on anything you say about the subject.
After all, you've already shown that you are morally bankrupt enough to LIE in order to achieve your goals. Jeez, even Mark Tadd won't do THAT.
Russ
Neil said:
Don't worry. We're working on forcing the auto manufacturers to do what we want, also. Juuuusssst like smokers.
Oh.. My bad.. By your reasoning, the government has no right to force auto manufacturers to raise fuel efficiency.
Right?
RIGHT?
Did I mention you make it too easy sometimes?
Russ
Neil said:
I suppose if a bunch of people started leaving their engines running while their car was inside the pool hall, then I might be a little disturbed by that, yeah. I might even want a law against it, or at least a law saying there needs to be adequate ventilation.
Neil said:
You quoted nothing from the American Cancer Society. You referred to a third party website, and didn't actually QUOTE anything from it. I'm the one who tore up your website's impartiality.
You must have missed my other post where I addressed your lie about the ACS. Here goes again.
Neil said:
And here was my response to that stupid statement of yours-
Taken directly from http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co...Indoor_Air.asp
www.cancer.org is the website of the American Cancer Society
Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in people who live with smokers but are not current smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children
increased incidence of middle ear infections in young children
Now, Neil.... You wouldn't be guilty of either LYING, or just not bothering to check your facts before you posted a comment like:
Neil said:
Would you? Now, neil.. Do you want to address why you told the above lie? Please? And if you would, don't try to change the subject.
Just please either give a direct quote to where a representative of the ACS says "Second hand smoke has no effect.", or admit you will lie to achieve you goals, and that you sincerely hope no one will catch you.
Thanks,
Russ
Funny, I never saw you "quote" anything from that site. I DID see you make a declarative statement, thought.
Don't worry, I'll wait while you look up "declarative".
You made a statement that said the ACS said second hand smoke had no ill effects. You never attributed that to a third party. You stated it as if it were fact. it was not fact. The ACS never said any such thing.
So, this brings us to one of two conclusions:
1. You lied in order to push your agenda.
or
2. You are quoting a site tht lies to push it's agenda.
Which is it? Neither puts you in a favorable light.
You could nix this whole argument by just saying you made up the statement out of thin air for your own purposes, and you're sorry.
But, I know you are not going to do that. You are too intellectually dishonest to admit you were wrong.
Russ
Don't worry, I'll wait while you look up "declarative".
You made a statement that said the ACS said second hand smoke had no ill effects. You never attributed that to a third party. You stated it as if it were fact. it was not fact. The ACS never said any such thing.
So, this brings us to one of two conclusions:
1. You lied in order to push your agenda.
or
2. You are quoting a site tht lies to push it's agenda.
Which is it? Neither puts you in a favorable light.
You could nix this whole argument by just saying you made up the statement out of thin air for your own purposes, and you're sorry.
But, I know you are not going to do that. You are too intellectually dishonest to admit you were wrong.
Russ
chefjeff said:
I think the natural forces you suggest here are helpful, but I fear they're not enough. I think regulating places of public accomodation for safety is a reasonable role of government.
As you suggest, this is most important in situations in which the consumer is not really in a position to assess the risk. And of course this is a common situation. The risk-ignorance can be because the consumer has no access to relavent information (How old is the meat? what is the temperature of the refrigerator? is the appliance electrically grounded? Does the school bus driver know how to drive?) or it could be because the consumer lacks the technical knowledge to assess the risk even if this information was known.
Here's why I fear reliance on self regulation. I was talking to our local police chief last week about liquor licenses and enforcement. He said they've seen many times a similar story. A bar owner shows fine compliance with the rules while business is fine. Then business will slow down, the bills will start piling up, and a feeling of desperation sets in. The bar owner tries to push alcohol to get sales up. Two-for ones, then three-for ones, then the line where drunk people get cut off gets pushed back, then the checking for age begins to get compromised and the last call gets pushed back and so forth. The fights go up, the dui's go up, and so forth.
My point here is not that any of these alcohol related things really should or shouldn't be be regulated. My point is that business make different decisions depending on their particular situation of which you as the consumer are not privy. A good solid restaurant in your town might go a long way to avoid the reputation that people who eat there might get food poisoning. But a restaurant that primarily serves travelers driving through or is struggling financially does not make the same risk assessment as the healthy business.
Given the large fraction of new businesses that fail, there must be a large number of financially desperate business owners (those who own the businesses that are failing). These people are going to serve older meat, neglect to get equipment cleaned and maintained and so forth. They're going to put the consumer at a higher risk than is the stable business owner.
And again, you don't know when you walk into a business what is the financial situation of the owner.
I prefer the regulation.
Lun@ticfringe
Registered
Damn Russ...if all them facts a figures you're spiting out were true...wouldnt tobacco be altogether outlawed????But its not outlawed...its still perfectly legal to smoke.I wonder if maybe just maybe those facts you seem to be enjoying posting...and re-posting...and re-posting.......are somewhat flawed?
The basic fact of the matter is their really is no legitimate second hand smoking danger...other wise the government would simply ban the sale and production of tobbaco...case closed.But since their is no real proof the non-smoking rights grope is simply using fear mongering to support local bans.The local bans will eventually lead to state bans...the state bans to a national ban and they get the end result they were looking for without having any actual proof of any kind of public hazard.
And the fact that the majority of the voting public want a ban on smoking in bars and pool halls is laughable.The majority could care less what goes on in any pool hall.Its the non-smoking groups that target a city with full blown ad campaigns stating their false fact and figures(much the same as Russ has been so happily quoting) in order to sway the voting on smoking ordnances in their favor.Once they get the majority of the city's in a state disillusioned and supporting their views its a simple matter to get a ban passed state wide.
In the end they get their way irregardless of how much damage it does to the rights of the business owners or the fact their entire argument is a pack of lies.
The basic fact of the matter is their really is no legitimate second hand smoking danger...other wise the government would simply ban the sale and production of tobbaco...case closed.But since their is no real proof the non-smoking rights grope is simply using fear mongering to support local bans.The local bans will eventually lead to state bans...the state bans to a national ban and they get the end result they were looking for without having any actual proof of any kind of public hazard.
And the fact that the majority of the voting public want a ban on smoking in bars and pool halls is laughable.The majority could care less what goes on in any pool hall.Its the non-smoking groups that target a city with full blown ad campaigns stating their false fact and figures(much the same as Russ has been so happily quoting) in order to sway the voting on smoking ordnances in their favor.Once they get the majority of the city's in a state disillusioned and supporting their views its a simple matter to get a ban passed state wide.
In the end they get their way irregardless of how much damage it does to the rights of the business owners or the fact their entire argument is a pack of lies.
Lun@ticfringe said:
Right on, brother! Right ON!
You tend to forget that business "owners" only stay in business at the leisure of government. It's always been that way, and it will always BE that way.
Furthermore, even IF businesses actually had any "rights" (which they don't), I don't feel those rights supercede my "right" to go into any PUBLIC business without my chest hurting or my clothes REEKING when I come out.
And ohhhhh boy are you mistaken about what "the majority wants". Every non smoker I have ever asked told me they would vote in a HEARTBEAT to outlaw all indoor smoking in public/government buildings.
Smoking is truly more hated than you know, Mr. future cancer victim.
And the reason it is not banned outright? Because cigarettes contain an extremely addictive drug, and people would result to a black market to get them. That's alright, though. We have a master plan. We intend to make it more and more undesirable to smoke, and make it as supremely "uncool" as possible. We plan to inconvenience smokers at every turn, making their lives miserable.
Kids won't be pressured as much into trying it, as only the "uncool" kids will be doing it. And when the current generations of cancer-suckers die, then the population of smokers will dwindle more and more until they are such a minority, that we can further erode their "rights" without fear of political reprisals.
MWAH HAH HAH HAH HAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Russ
if smoking causes cancer shouldnt everyone who smokes get cancer?
nah .. it's more like saying that shooting yourself in the face with a .45 cal will kill you..so everybody that does that will dieFLICKit said:
your statement would be true if it were phrased as "failed" Chute openings result in death...
supergreenman said:
My posts are fighting against the violent principle of pool halls being controlled by those who don't own or pay for them. Sorry, but I am not the one who made this issue political, the control-freaks did when they decided it was OK to use force against their fellow man, and a few of us pool players are fighting back the best we can. We are just defending our sport from those who think it is just hunky-dory to force others to do what they otherwise don't want to do. OK?
If someone doesn't pay for what they use, as you talked about in your example, then they, by definition, canNOT be libertarians, but are instead common thieves. As I explained, but will explain again and again as necessary, a libertarian follows the principles of liberty which means before s/he takes any action concerning others, s/he asks himself, "Will this action initiate harm against another?" If the answer is 'yes," s/he does NOT take that action. Simple, but so effective.
Now, compare that to other politcal thinking. A socialist or neo-con, or fascist, or church-statists, Democrat or Republican, or any other statist, NEVER bother to ask the question that a libertarian ALWAYS asks. Why? Because the control-freaks only think about society as one thing in itself to be controlled the best* way, rather than considering that a society is in reality a collection of selves, of individuals, each with his/her own desires, wants, needs, and preferences. This control-paradigm creates problems that before did not exist. These new, unnecessary problems result in more "solutions," from the same top-down control-freaks, creating more problems with individuals, and on it goes.
The only way to stop this vicious, country-destroying cycle is for enough citizens to recognize that the process of attempting to force one type of order onto all is itself the main problem. Libertarians recognize this and attempt to correct it by their actions and words. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two such attempts by libertarians, products of one of the first "me" generations of the late 1700's.
If a libertarian doesn't act libertarian, s/he aint' no libertarian, but simply one who forgets to look in the mirror when seeking solutions to society's problems. It always starts and ends with the self.
Make sense? If you have 5 minutes and want a little entertainment, visit this site where it explains, via animation, the principles of which I speak:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html
Jeff Livingston
* Every statist has his or her "best" way for top-down control. With the individual conveniently left out of the equation, this is THE reason wars are fought and why millions of innocent individuals are murdered. It is also why otherwise successful pool halls sometimes close.
mikepage said:
OK.
Just so you know, govt regulation doesn't produce perfect results. People still die from food poisoning, fires, etc. Utopia is not one of the choices.
I'm not claiming perfection either, just more peaceful ways of accomplishing the same thing.
With technology becoming so integrated, cheap and easy private databases will soon trump dinasoaur govt regulations anyway, so every place a person goes into can be known beforehand as to its current safety risks. In a libertarian society, each is able to choose what risks s/he is willing to take AND each is held responsible for any damage done to others.
Much has been studied and written by freedom lovers about these types of regulations and how non-coercive soltutions are more effective than govt regualtions...You can do some research if this really interest you. I don't want to get too far off the subject as others are already complaining about it. Perhaps we can start another thread in the NPR section?
Thanks, Mike, as always, for a thoughtful, considerate post,
Jeff Livingston
Last edited: