New case against smoking

jmurphy said:
See Jeff that's the problem with the Libertarian views.
I guess in your view a privet owned business should not be subject to ANY Codes or Regulations. The building could be a Fire trap, Kitchen serving rancid food, etc.........
And the Libertarian view would be to let the public decide to go there or not. Jeff do I have your view about right?
Click to expand...

Pretty close. As for the poison food, etc. there are natural laws already discovered that deal quite effectively with these things. Laws against fraud, assault, etc. These are the orginal reasons for the codes that do some good (but would be done better in a freer environment with competition etc. Examples are everywhere to prove this).

jmurphy said:
What you guys fail to realize is that none of the regulations, building codes, smoking ban (if the city or state passed it) NONE of this violates privet property rights.
.
Click to expand...

But those do, in reality. The pool hall owner wants smokers, a guy wants to smoke there. Property rights of the smoker and the pool hall owner are intact, mutual association is intact, so there is no problem. But in walks jmurphy who pulls out the govt gun and demands an end to this peace BY TAKING AWAY EACH PERSON'S CONTROL OF HIS PROPERTY. Property rights violated.

jmurphy said:
No where does it say that anyone has a "Right to own and operate a Business" .
Click to expand...

There is a right to compete in an open market...without jmurphy's permission. jumurphy can compete, too, with a non-smoking venue....or you can hire the guns of govt and take away my right to run a business. You choose the latter, I guess. That doesn't make it just.

jmurphy said:
See once you decide to open a Business on your Privet Property you sign papers
that state that you agree to follow ALL Federal, State, & Local laws and regulations as it pertains to your business.
Click to expand...

Guns to heads tend to make one follow the gun holder's wishes, yes. The ability of the state (the monoopoly on violence, as Obomba calls it) to enforce its wishes still doesn't make any and all "laws" just.



Jeff Livingston
 
jmurphy said:
Please enlighten me on how my right to have clean air to breath when I go out at night is Fascist? See I don't care what people do when it affects them, I only care if someone does something that is hazardous to me. What gives a smoker the right to poison other people?
Click to expand...

I assume you are an adult capable of making choices about businesses you would like to frequent or not. Why is this so hard to understand? If I was allergic to cats I probably would use my brain and not go hanging out in CATS R US or pet stores. Same thing.


Please tell me if your Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Wife, Children, etc.... had Terminal Lung Cancer contracted from second hand smoke would you be sitting there talking about a smoker's right to exhale poison in your face? Would be sitting there telling me how that member of your family should have stayed out of the Bar, Night Club, Casino, etc......?
Click to expand...

YES, I WOULD.

But this is just more useless appeals to emotion. When you come up with an argument, please post it.

I also love how you are still ignoring the alcohol comparison. You guys are always so predictable. :grin:


jmurphy said:
I guess in your view a privet owned business should not be subject to ANY Codes or Regulations. The building could be a Fire trap, Kitchen serving rancid food, etc.........
Click to expand...

This 'argument' has already been addressed pretty handily before. See previous page.
 
Spider1 said:
I assume you are an adult capable of making choices about businesses you would like to frequent or not. Why is this so hard to understand? If I was allergic to cats I probably would use my brain and not go hanging out in CATS R US or pet stores. Same thing.




YES, I WOULD. (I'm calling Bullshit on that one)

But this is just more useless appeals to emotion. When you come up with an argument, please post it.

I also love how you are still ignoring the alcohol comparison. You guys are always so predictable. :grin:

You must have reading comprehension problems, I have already stated that drinking booze is not the same thing as smoking, You drink, your liver gets destroyed not mine. The only absurd thing here is you comparing "Drunk Driving" to the smoking issue. DRUNK DRIVING is already against the Law.

This 'argument' has already been addressed pretty handily before. See previous page.
Click to expand...

I have a question for you.
Do you believe that second hand smoke causes Lung Cancer in non-smokers?
 
jmurphy said:
You must have reading comprehension problems, I have already stated that drinking booze is not the same thing as smoking, You drink, your liver gets destroyed not mine. The only absurd thing here is you comparing "Drunk Driving" to the smoking issue. DRUNK DRIVING is already against the Law.
Click to expand...

Alcohol consumption is a public health risk, not just because of drunk driving, as I already linked before. Again, you deny this and refuse to address it because like most activists you get awful embarrassed when your hypocrisy is laid bare.

Drunken driving IS illegal, do you know why? Because the public does not have the choice of whether or not to drive on the same roads as someone drunk. You have a choice about patronizing a place that allows smoking.


I have a question for you.
Do you believe that second hand smoke causes Lung Cancer in non-smokers?
Click to expand...

I think it is absolutely possible. Do I think it likely? Probably no more likely than the carcinogenic fumes coming out of car exhaust (another public health risk you hypocritically ignore), but I DO 100% believe it is a danger.

That said, I also believe (for the 5th or 6th time now) that you are an adult hopefully capable enough to choose what sorts of businesses you frequent!


This really isn't that hard to grasp.
 
Do you believe that second hand smoke causes Lung Cancer in non-smokers?
Click to expand...

I've been smoking around my pet lab rats for some time now with no adverse affect.
You see, my wife and I run a rescue shelter for unwanted lab rats so we have a few.

Just kidding, carry on.
 
JoeyA said:
hehehe. I think Eddie was making a tongue-in-cheek post, while giving another reason for people to quit smoking.

What a lot of people don't know is that MOST all lung diseases caused by smoking cannot be repaired!

If you think about that for a minute or two, it might give someone the motivation to quit one more time.

The fact that second hand smoke is deadly for those around it and cue cases can be damaged by smoke is icing on the funeral cake.

JoeyA
Click to expand...

A worth while read:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1819144,00.html
 
They should ban smoking everywhere even outside. You'd only be allowed to smoke in your house.

I hate hate HATE second-hand smoke.
 
The pool halls/rooms I frequent have "smoke eaters" I am not sure what they do, but they are not eating any smoke. I usually have to take a shower when I get home to get rid of the smell. I used to smoke, I know it is an addiction, but really, there was a guy yesterday that had lit 4 cigarettes going at the same time. He "forgot" he had already lit one or two or three? Really? Maybe they could get those little ashtrays the pull the smoke in while it is just sitting there. Also, what is it about letting it hang out of your mouth while ashes fall on the table? Have some respect for the game. John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top