Smoking Ban

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I could not disagree more. By that notion, we can now reasonably outlaw rock climbing, bungee jumping, surfing, and motorcycles. It is my life to risk, and it is not your place to judge. Murder is wrong. Suicide is not. The government telling you that you cannot take the one thing you and only you undeniably own is BULLSHIT. Look, if we assume one owns one's self, then these limitations are simply not logical. (Btw, suicide is illegal -- has been for years.) On the other hand, if one does not own one's self, we may go down a different path. It is called communism, and may be a viable path. But do NOT consider it freedom. Either we are free or we are not.

*sigh* Sarcasm my dear Timber, sarcasm. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

And I`m pretty sure all means of security is taken when bungee jumping or climbing rocks. The same cannot be said when driving without seat belt. But to teach your children that driving without seat belts is OK is another matter. That´s what really upsets me. [img]smile.gif[/img] Should we get back on topic now? [img]tongue.gif[/img] And don´t say suicide is OK. You will turn this into a religious deabte.

[Timber Loftis]

Willow:
1. It was not intended as a low blow - at all, but a fair point about the fact that one day Wellard's kid may exercise his(?) own freedom.

2. Non-smoking restaurants are common in the US. And, I am not against banning smoking in restaurants. I agree that non-smoking bars are rare -- primarily because many non-smokers DO smoke when drinking. (Seems we all need a release every now and then -- a time to do that which we normally don't.) HOwever, my point was that todays 15-20 year olds have a high percentage of asthma (ranging from 10-25% IIRC), so in the future the market actually WOULD provide non-smoking bars. Anything that high a percentage of the population has an interest in will be provided by the market. Non-smoking bars WILL be profitable without legislation, I assure you.

Plus, things which cater to kids will always be non-smoking. Think Disney World -- large, private, and they stuff you in an out-of-the-way corner if you dare light up (best I remember -- it's been years).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by WillowIX: And I`m pretty sure all means of security is taken when bungee jumping or climbing rocks. The same cannot be said when driving without seat belt.

Yes, but this high security is taken by the people providing the services, based on their desire to avoid a liability lawsuit. It is provided by the market. And, all the rock climbers I know just walk up to a cliff and start climbing with whatever gear they feel like bringing. Same with bungee jumping on your own (except you go down instead of up [img]tongue.gif[/img] ).

Oh, and I also mentioned motorcycles. Make note: in the last 10 years several states have repealed their mandatory helmet laws. Now, forgive me for saying so, but helmets are much more integral to surviving your typical motorcycle crash than seatbelts are to surviving your typical car wreck. This brings out a good point -- that the laws are not based on what is reasonable or safe for society, but rather which group feels like bringing its lobbying force to bear long enough to threaten a politician with votes and get the gubbermint to do what you want it to.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: On the other hand, if one does not own one's self, we may go down a different path. It is called communism, and may be a viable path. But do NOT consider it freedom. Either we are free or we are not.

As a Communist I find it slightly annoying when people use my belief system to automatically discredit others. I personally feel that comparing banning smoking and Communism is extreme - but only because it is a slander to communists. The bottom line of true Communism is freedom. Thats the only way it'll work.

As for the self-ownership argument... well, suffice to say I'm not a big fan of some of the logic surrounding it. But I think it might be best to have a go at that argument in another thread rather than clog up this one - it's more than a little bit tangential a lot of the time.

[Mordenheim]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by LordKathen: All I have to say is, whats next? I thought they did away with the commies in the states a while back? Sounds like Communism to me.

Sounds like common sense to me [img]tongue.gif[/img] shame you have to legislate to protect people from themselves [/QUOTE]So alchohal should be next right? I mean it is ddevastating not only to families (so much abuse tied to it) but to the body, mind, and soul as well. Food of course next as well.

I don't even smoke. This second hand smoke argument is garbage. Do people understand what exactly is in the air we breath in a modern day city? We need to outlaw car's right now. We need to get rid of industrial plant's that spew out more toxin in a day then most smokers lifetime.

It is a joke folks. They need to be wary how hard they push people with this. Freedom is not free and dealing with thing's you might not like is a part of it. Banning smoking in a bar is not logical.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This is also ignorant. It is fundamental that I own myself. Ergo, my life is mine to risk. Now, if you want to prohibit my insurance or legal recovery based on me being stupid enough to not wear a seatbelt, that is fine. But, forcing me to strap myself in while driving is, quite literally, wrongful imprisonment.

It's a different situation here TL. Any injuries caused by not wearing a seat belt are treated under the NHS. It saves money to enforce the law, same as crash helmets for motor bikers.

I remember the time before the seat belt law was introduced. It wasn't macho to do your belt up. The law gave us reason to do it.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Willow: 1. It was not intended as a low blow - at all, but a fair point about the fact that one day Wellard's kid may exercise his(?) own freedom. Again I say "Sarcasm my dear Timber, sarcasm". Hence the use of the " [img]tongue.gif[/img] " smiley. I noticed I didn´t use it in the first post directed to you. Sorry about the confusion. [img]smile.gif[/img] 2. Non-smoking restaurants are common in the US. And, I am not against banning smoking in restaurants. I agree that non-smoking bars are rare -- primarily because many non-smokers DO smoke when drinking. (Seems we all need a release every now and then -- a time to do that which we normally don't.) HOwever, my point was that todays 15-20 year olds have a high percentage of asthma (ranging from 10-25% IIRC), so in the future the market actually WOULD provide non-smoking bars. Anything that high a percentage of the population has an interest in will be provided by the market. Non-smoking bars WILL be profitable without legislation, I assure you.I won´t get into an asthma debate with you. It wouldn´t be a fair fight. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Actually I´m not against smoking in bars. We have several non-smoking bars here in Toronto. It´s not their policy, instead the visitors decided themselves that ir was proper respect towards other guests. [img]smile.gif[/img] My pet-peeve is smokers standing right outside the main hospital entry. I´ve even seen some people smoke outside the casualty department. However I do believe all restaurants should be smoke free. Plus, things which cater to kids will always be non-smoking. Think Disney World -- large, private, and they stuff you in an out-of-the-way corner if you dare light up (best I remember -- it's been years). AFAIK they still have this policy. We went there a few years ago and some smokers complained about being harassed when they were politely, but firmly, asked to get out of the way if they intended to smoke. But there are still several parents smoking when taking their childrean to the play grounds.

[Timber Loftis]

We've had this discussion before, Barry, and I do not want to derail the thread. I used the Communism term as it is commonly referred to -- a political system where the government owns everything. Now, you and I have played out the discussion to point where we both understand that the "pure" communism would be completely voluntary, and government would likely not exist much at all. However, in colloquial, that would be more commonly referred to as "enlightened anarchy" or something like that.

My point is that a fundamental distinction you must make in discussing the government's power is whether or not ownership and freedom derives from the people, who own themselves, or from the government, which owns everything including the people.

And I did not mean to insult you -- and I hope I fairly represented and understand your belief.

[ 05-08-2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Stormymystic]

ummmLK I think there is a law against farting in public in some states, have to go check the law age though, bbl to let ya know, and yes TL...i do know the law....My husband was an MP, Prison gaurd, Jailer...and has had more offers to be a prison gaurd again...one all the way from Wyomming

[harleyquinn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I agree that non-smoking bars are rare -- primarily because many non-smokers DO smoke when drinking.

Well then, they aren't non-smokers. Whether you smoke a little or a lot, you're a smoker. It's like saying your a little pregnant. Either you are or you aren't [img]tongue.gif[/img] (not a slam at you TL, just a peeve of mine).