Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Thorfinn]

Sorry, did not mean to come off sounds condescending,

Yes, I know, I should have just let it slide, but was afraid we might be on some kind of slippery slope.

but then stating that I should state what the unsafe levels kind of comes off that way as well.

I don't think so. You are the one supporting limiting others based on the idea that their actions are damaging to you. You have the burden of proof to show that is true.

So basicly you are saying that the EPA safe level limits are bogus?

Not at all. Sorry if it came off that way. It is just that without knowing what data points they used, and without knowing the uncertainty of their extrapolations, it is impossible to say.

Look, all I ask you to show is:

1. What is the level at which benzene (for instance) becomes a risk, and a risk of what?
2. How much benzene is in passive smoke?

If passive smoke is below that level, you may or may not be justified in calling for an end to passive smoke. There may be other sources that are more easily dealt with. But at least showing these levels will give us a place to start, rather than basing everything on an emotional appeal.

Timber, sorry, but I think movies portraying the evils of small government written, produced and directed by people wanting big government is not a good argument. (To tell you the truth, I have not watched them.) I could just as easily counter with Orwell's 1984, Kuvbrik's THX-1138, Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, Huxley's A Brave New Worldetc...

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, I would say 1984 supports my point completely. Destroy the gobbermint and a new power arises. Private or public, the powerful (in capitalism this = rich most often) will always subjigate the weak.

[Thorfinn]

I don't understand. Why does a story about a totalitarian government walking all over the people ("Imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever." or something like that. Or am I remembering the wrong book?) mean small, limited government is a bad thing? It seems to me it was an argument against strong central government and its commensurate ministries of disinformation...

[ 05-12-2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Animal]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Animal:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by johnny:
I don't care about saving money, i would only be spending it on other "useless" things. All i want is a smoke from time to time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's your right to do so, as long as you understand the consequences, but having said that, here in Canada a non-smoker and a smoker pay the same premium for health care. I feel that health care premiums should be based upon "risk factors," much as some places (I believe) in the US do. If you're a smoker, you're going to pay more for health care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice one, but that too doesn't hold any water. You drive a car, right ? Well, you should pay more to healthcare than i do, since i have less chance to end up in the hospital than you do when you're driving.

Doesn't make any sense ? I know, but neither did your comment.

Pulled, this one from the now locked thread, so it looks a little strange, but I had to reply to it.

That's why I pay car insurance.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

And it is health insurance that is actually higher for smokers here in the States also.

Health Care can NOT be billed according to risk factors....that is discrimination. Hospitals also can NOT deny care to those who can't (or won't) pay. Everyone is entitled to the same level of health care, regardless of lifestyle choices and the hospital cannot base their fees on the risk factors of the individuals they treat.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

quote: Originally posted by LordKathen: Except you are saying that while they have a smoke, you want them to go away. That is the bottom line. Its not enough that they make an effort to be conscienceous. You want them to leave. ??? Sounds like solid friendship to me...

Originally posted by Donut:
The door is 5 yards away. It's hardly a lifelong seperation is it?[/QUOTE]Then why don't YOU walk the 5 yards outside and wait 5 minutes while your mates finish thier cigs? Since the pub allows smoking and you choose to go there anyway, that seems like a reasonable solution. That way, everybody really IS happy. Your mates get to enjoy their cigs and you get a few minutes of nice fresh air.

quote: Originally posted by Thorfinn: Yorick, you can make a very solid case that any loud noises contribute to hearing loss. I defy you to find more than a handful of bars where rock-n-roll is played at low volume. While classical and "elevator" music is often at background levels, I have only been to a handful of bars where the volume was not cranked enough that you had to yell at the guy next to you to be heard, and sometimes not even that worked. Suffice it to say that I have experienced hearing loss at these establishments, though I actually only went there for a beer and companionship. You rockers and your inability to contain your noise forced a hearing loss on me, and I think it is high time the government threw the lot of you in jail...

Originally posted by Yorick:
I wear earplugs to any concert to reduce damage to my ears. Those concerned about their hearing, can and do make choices that work. However I cannot wear "smoke filters" to reduce tobacco damage.[/QUOTE]Yorick my friend, why should I have to buy earplugs just so I can enjoy a beer at the local bar. Since it is proven that the band's LOUD MUSIC is detrimental to the hearing of every single patron....shouldn't the burden of "public safety" be on the band, and not each individual patron?


{these two examples were cut-n-pasted from the original thread}

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Forgive me for making 3 consecutive posts, but I just spent almost 3 hours reading ALL 266 posts in BOTH threads before making my first response, so I feel I'm entitled.

For the record, I am a dedicated non-smoker. I've never taken a single puff off one - not even out of curiosity. But I've been around it all my life because both of my parents smoke (as well as several other family members). I have suffered NO adverse side effects from growing up in a house of smokers. I do have severe sinus attacks sometimes, but these are caused by naturally occurring pollen. Admittedly, cigarette smoke aggravates my sinuses during these attacks, but it does not CAUSE the attacks itself.

As I read through the previous thread, I was struck by an ironic thought. Most of those supporting the ban say that smokers should be forced to take their "habit" outside since it is offensive to the majority of the patrons. Yet most of these same people were OUTRAGED a few months ago when a mall in NY tried to force two men to remove T-shirts that were considered "offensive" by the majority of it's patrons or vacate the premises.

In one case, the rights of the individual supercedes the rights of the majority, in the other case it is the exact opposite.

[LordKathen]

Very eloquant Cerek. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]
I had a thought. What may happen to all the smokers, smoking outside the bar at sporadic times crowding the sidewalk, loitering, making noise outside, bothering people walking inicently through a cloud of smoke. Will they next completly ban smoking within sight of the public? Maybe leaving their butts all over the place. They will then probly force the bar to hire security to patrol the croud hanging around drunk outside cousing a ruckis.

[Thorfinn]

Gosh, Cerek, I think you are right. Hadn't thought about it, but many of those who thought the guy in the t-shirt was being persecuted are now cheering that the smokers are being persecuted.

I guess that is one of the benefits of having a consistent, private property, rights-based philosophy -- you don't have to remember which side you need to take in any given discussion, you just have to ask who is the property-owner, and who is the guest...

BTW, I had only one quibble with your posts -- that thing about people being "entitled" to health care. I know that the state currently says that people are entitled to health care, but I believe that law is immoral. If someone is entitled to health care, that means that someone else is forced to provide that health care at no cost if need be, and no one should be able to force another to labor for him -- that is slavery. I think people are no more entitled to health care than they are entitled to a Corvette...

[Donut]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Incidentally, we have already done that with AIDS transmission and rectal intercourse, for instance, so under precautionary principle, we should be justified in banning anal intercourse. But for a change, liberals in America are shying away from applying the principle here...

Anal intercourse is illegal in the UK. Has the US gone to buggery?