This Smoking Ban Craze Has Gone Too Far!

Reading comprehension ain't your strong point, is it....

Isn't the reason for losing the rights germane to any discussion of rights lost? Why does that escape you?
And what exactly have you added to this discussion other than to repeat ad nauseum that someone is off topic? As a matter of fact, after glancing back at some of your 4500 posts I can't find an intelligent comment. Don't know why that surprises me.
 
Last edited:
Again you assume facts that you know nothing about... As to my 4500 post sorry you don't like them, but who cares what you think or do you want to ban them too since you don't like them. If you would stay on topic nobody would have to remind you to get back on topic.:smt021

Reading comprehension ain't your strong point, is it....

Is everyone on the Hiwasee that moronic? Isn't the reason for losing the rights germane to any discussion of rights lost? Why does that escape you?
And what exactly have you added to this discussion other than to repeat ad nauseum that someone is off topic? As a matter of fact, after glancing back at some of your 4500 posts I can't find an intelligent comment. Don't know why that surprises me.
 
Once again you avoid the question. Well at least you posted one of those cute emoticons. Nice job.
 
Once again you avoid the question. Well at least you posted one of those cute emoticons. Nice job.

Was there a question worth answering in your post? Glad you liked the emoticons here is another one for you. :smt018
 
Reading comprehension ain't your strong point, is it....

Isn't the reason for losing the rights germane to any discussion of rights lost? Why does that escape you?
And what exactly have you added to this discussion other than to repeat ad nauseum that someone is off topic? As a matter of fact, after glancing back at some of your 4500 posts I can't find an intelligent comment. Don't know why that surprises me.

Ignoring the ad hominems (which apparently the Shopsmith people didn't), it looks like Chuck comprehended pretty well. JG presented three points (that I can find) to support his premise that people unaffected by cigarette smoke could stop free men and women from making their own choice.

The first seems to be that unaffected people were in a better position to make the risk reward analysis...and since (to them) it was so highly skewed, that justified their ability to censor the behavior...sort of a "benevolent dictator" position. In short, people who smoke are only doing so because they are stupid and since people who don't smoke are smarter, non-smokers should be able to make those decisions for the smokers. However, he doesn't seem to have an answer to where this benevolence stops.

Second is the cost to society of smoking. The problem with this argument is that it is subjective. People with lung cancer die and roughly 10% of smokers will get lung cancer (or emphysema). However, if these people live...are the social costs less? Is long term care less expensive? Alzheimer's? Parkinson's? Other cancers? According to the American Cancer Society, don't you have about an even money chance of getting cancer in your lifetime anyway?

Finally, JG presents that there is absolutely no reason to smoke. The problem is that people who smoke say they enjoy it. Thus, there is a reason.

The OP questioned why outdoor smoking could be prohibited or why businesses who chose to allow it couldn't. The only answer by those in favor seemed to be "because we want to". I do not smoke cigarettes but do not see that as enough of a reason either, OP'er.

There is no debate that smoking can be prohibited in government offices. I also don't debate that office buildings can make the same choices. I do not even see that there is a challenge to making public spaces (shopping malls and the like) smoke free. The OP was about open spaces and private businesses.
 
JG presented three points (that I can find) to support his premise that people unaffected by cigarette smoke could stop free men and women from making their own choice.

All of my posts speak of second hand smoke, not "people unaffected" I thought you said you read this thread?

The first seems to be that unaffected people were in a better position to make the risk reward analysis...and since (to them) it was so highly skewed, that justified their ability to censor the behavior...sort of a "benevolent dictator" position. In short, people who smoke are only doing so because they are stupid and since people who don't smoke are smarter, non-smokers should be able to make those decisions for the smokers. However, he doesn't seem to have an answer to where this benevolence stops.

Never said that either. Just a continuation of your first incorrect premise. However, as stated before (if you had read) anyone continuing to smoke in the face of overwhelming medical evidence, only two logical reasons can be deduced; 1. smokers are not very bright (Kearneys position), or 2. They are powerless to stop.


Second is the cost to society of smoking. The problem with this argument is that it is subjective. People with lung cancer die and roughly 10% of smokers will get lung cancer (or emphysema). However, if these people live...are the social costs less? Is long term care less expensive? Alzheimer's? Parkinson's? Other cancers? According to the American Cancer Society, don't you have about an even money chance of getting cancer in your lifetime anyway?

I never once mentioned the cost to society in this thread. (you sure you read it??)

Finally, JG presents that there is absolutely no reason to smoke. The problem is that people who smoke say they enjoy it. Thus, there is a reason.

First thing you understood correctly. And not a single smoker here has posted, after numerous requests, one reason to smoke. One member posted a link to a blog suggesting possible "benefits". I'd still like to know what those can be. When I requested an answer, he and all that thought his blog link to be clever, suddenly disappeared. Not surprising.
It's my belief that the "enjoyment" comes simply from granting the body's craving for nicotine and the chemical effects it has on the body. We can differ on that point, but speak to anyone in the medical field to verify that. Or don't


There is no debate that smoking can be prohibited in government offices. I also don't debate that office buildings can make the same choices. I do not even see that there is a challenge to making public spaces (shopping malls and the like) smoke free. The OP was about open spaces and private businesses.

Ummmm, no. The OP cited in his opening post, a PUBLIC rest area. He even included a picture for those of you who apparently are reading disabled.
 
North Carolina just went smoke free indoors. last night was Nascar Speed Street in down town Charlotte. Do you think the hardcore race fans listened? I dont smoke, but I dont think it fair.
 
jg300da - You are so full of xxxt, no wonder people call you names have polls to ban you. You just want to be a troll don't you. The OP started this whole thread about smoking in the open areas of a public rest area. Do you not know what a rest area is? And yes you did talk about the cost of care, And yes you did call smokers idiots. Nobody need to answer your repeated question about smoking, because that is not the point of this thread. Why don't you do what you said your were going to do a couple pages back and just bow out gracefully.


....I thought you said you read this thread?

Never said that either.
...
I never once mentioned the cost to society in this thread. (you sure you read it??)
....
.... And not a single smoker here has posted, after numerous requests, one reason to smoke.

Ummmm, no. The OP cited in his opening post, a PUBLIC rest area. He even included a picture for those of you who apparently are reading disabled.
 
I hope we never get to the point that everything we do must be justified by a proven benefit. We are all involved in recreational power boating and there are certainly a lot of people that see no benefit in that. Noise, pollution, waste of energy…waste of personal resources that might better benefit us if used differently. We would be hard pressed to prove there are benefits that can only be gotten from power boating. We do it because we ‘want to’ or ‘like to’ and have obviously made the choice to.

This is what Iowa says, maybe it's just easier for people to know where you can or can't smoke and therefore enforce, who knows.

The law says that smoking is prohibited on the grounds of any public building. What does that mean?
“Grounds of any public building” means an outdoor area that is used in connection with the building. This could mean a sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, but not a sidewalk in the public right-of way; a sitting or standing area immediately adjacent to the building; a patio or a deck; a courtyard; a swimming pool; a beach, or any other outdoor area designated as non-smoking. This applies only to public buildings owned, leased, or operated by or under the control of the state government or its political subdivisions.
 
As a part time smoker, I am fine with the bans in restaurants or bar/restaurants. When they also included favorite "hole in the wall" bars where the average patron probably wont live past 60, that sucked. And in the winter, it sucked to have to go outside. During the other 3 seasons, fine with me having to go outside. However, I can see how others dont want to inhale the smoke others put out, so ok, no enclosed public areas....fine.

NOW, they want to ban smoking outside? So dumb.

Ya know, the government has to decide some things. If smoking is that bad for you, then stop taking money from the tabacco companies, and ban smoking all together...but ahhhh....we ht the point: money.

So instead we get half assed laws like no smoking outside to show the people "we care about you, so we will babysit you against the bad smokers".

Enough government intervention with such frivilous crap. Really. Get to focking work you career political arsholes and make some REAL difference in people's lives, not just what you want to pick and choose to look good here and there.





l
 
Last edited:
Here's the funny part, smokers that say "I choose to smoke". That may be true initially, but in a very short time they are "choosing" nothing. The vast majority are powerless NOT to smoke. Manipulated by big tobacco. So powerful an addiction that even the most intelligent of them will somehow rationalize it.

Id agree that many are addicted and need help to quit. But I also know a very large # that have quit forever, or like me, will smoke when the mood hits, sometimes for days or weeks, even months at a time. Lately I have been smoking more as this time of year I love relaxing at the cabana bar with a Guiness and a smoke, or if Im out on the boat for the day, I like to relax on the swim platform with a smoke.

Then there comes a time when I dont have a smoke for weeks on end, and even months.

I dont see smoking as a bad habit unless you cant do without it and start hitting a pack a day or more. In general, I see mostly people who will have a pack for a few days to a week, and just like having a beer or something, they will smoke once in a while. I do not see a lot of "pack a day" people like I once used to.
 
A lung doctor once told me that if smokers are lucky, they'll get lung cancer. If they're unlucky they'll get emphysema. Here's wishing chuck1 the best of luck...
Enjoy the rest of the thread.

Ill start the name calling: Youre a douchebag. How dare you wish cancer on someone just because you disagree.

I hope your dick falls off, asshat.
 
+1 on the 'luck' joke.

The next question is which is more expensive for the rest of us? Chemo is pricey, but so's a decade's worth of O2 bottles and home care. Having to pay to keep those idiots alive is yet another reason it's a stupid habit best eliminated entirely.

You and jdg should get a room and stroke each other's "ego"
 
Ah, the last refuge of a losing argument, try to equate it with something entirely unrelated. Good luck with that.

:huh: His comparisons were of the same cloth as the topic at hand. Please illustrate how they are not before you assume you are just correct.
 
Comparing it to "fat people" and "liver issues" and "boaters having fun" is pure stupidity. The kind of stupidity that is common among those trying to make a point without a clue.

Thank you for the insult. I was hoping for a more rational discussion. You are proving my point.

You have been conditioned by those who need your support to believe that infringing on someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in whatever manner they (and you) see fit is OK just because they (and you) just don't happen to like, or agree with, what that person is doing.

You still don't get it. Your whole argument is basically that it is ok to take away whatever rights you wish from others as long as you think that you are doing it with good intentions.

Those analogies make no sense because none of those scenarios affect the health of others around them. And that is the issue.
When your right to do as you want affects the safety and rights of others, then your rights cease to exist. Period.
That is the impetus behind the restrictions, bannings, etc.

These analogies make perfect sense because perspective is the only difference between them.

Being gay increases the chance one has of getting AIDS. That costs the rests of us a lot of money, as well as exposing us all to more AIDS because the behavior increases, or at least facilitates, propagation of the disease. So by using your own example, we should tax the hell out of, if not outright illegalize, being light in the loafers because it is better for them, and safer for the rest of us. Sure, they'll get a little upset, but it is for their own good.

Someone else already mentioned it. Ever sit next to anyone over 200lbs on an airplane? Being that big is bad for their health, and I had to sit next to a sweaty, smelly person with their sweaty arm pressed against my clean shirt for 2 hours and deal with them constantly fanning themselves to get air. That person should have to pay for the part of my seat that they ovelapped into. It is bad for their health, and it infringes on me by making me uncomfortable. Again, by your own standards, taking away people's right to be obese would be acceptable.

Drinking? Too many examples of how it is bad for them, and uncomfortable or unsafe for the rest of us. By your standards, we can take away all of their rights. No doing anything after 1 drink. Period. No exceptions.

Boating? Regardless of how much fun, pleasure, or value YOU get out of boating, many other people see boating as an environmentally unfriendly, dangerous, unnecessary, noisy, frivolous activity that serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. You need to start worrying (along with the rest of us) because the people that YOU support will eventually set their sights on something that YOU enjoy. Then they will find a way to demonize it, identify a "risk" to others, initiate a "movement" against it, then tax it, regulate it, or otherwise restrict your right to do it in the name of somebody else's right to not to have to watch or listen to you doing it.

You think that everything is fine now because it is happening to an activity or behavior that you do not participate in. Just beware that you are aiding and abetting the liberals by supporting the creation of an environment in which it is OK to take rights away from some people just because either a collection of other people, or the government itself, choses not to condone an activity. Everything is fair game. Sooner or later, they will run out of ways to mess with smokers, and will turn to other behavior as reason for taxation and/or government control.

Sooner or later, something like this will impact you...

Michael
 
Last edited:
Ill start the name calling: Youre a douchebag. How dare you wish cancer on someone just because you disagree.

I hope your dick falls off, asshat.



What’s an asshat?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,950
Messages
1,422,857
Members
60,932
Latest member
juliediane
Back
Top