Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Suddar still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
Wow. Then I don't give a shit if you can't be bothered to copy and paste.
Well, technically it is illegal, so I don't do it if I remember not to. Only excerpts are covered by fair use.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
BetaTested spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Ya seriously. I'm not going to give out my email to someone that's just going to spam it with shit I don't care about.
o rly?
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Steer clear of smokers and any of their drifting fumes. That's the advice of the surgeon general, who on Tuesday declared the debate about the dangers of secondhand smoke over."The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard," said Richard Carmona.
There is no safe level of secondhand smoke -- even a few minutes inhaling someone else's smoke harms nonsmokers, he found. And separate smoking sections, even the best ventilated ones, don't protect enough. Carmona called for completely smoke-free buildings and public places to lessen what he termed "involuntary smoking."
More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to someone else's tobacco smoke, and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.
The report is sure to fuel efforts by states and cities to ban smoking in workplaces and other public spaces. Seventeen states and more than 400 towns, cities and counties have passed strong no-smoking laws.
But public smoking bans don't reach inside private homes, where just over one in five children breathes their parents' smoke -- and youngsters' still developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Secondhand smoke puts children at risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, as well as bronchitis, pneumonia, worsening asthma attacks, poor lung growth and ear infections, the report found.
Carmona implored parents who can't kick the habit to smoke outdoors, never in a house or a car with a child. Opening a window to let the smoke out won't protect them.
"Stay away from smokers," he urged everyone else.
Repeatedly questioned about how the Bush administration would implement his findings, Carmona would pledge only to publicize the report in hopes of encouraging anti-smoking advocacy. Passing anti-smoking laws is up to Congress and state and local governments, he said.
"My job is to make sure we keep a light on this thing," he said.
Still, public health advocates said the report should accelerate an already growing movement toward more smoke-free workplaces.
"This could be the most influential surgeon general's report in 15 years," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The message to governments is: The only way to protect your citizens is comprehensive smoke-free laws."
The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year.
Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.
Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases by up to 30 percent the risk of a nonsmoker getting heart disease or lung cancer, Carmona found.
Some tobacco companies acknowledge the risks. But R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has fought some of the smoking bans, challenges the new report's call for complete smoke-free zones and insists the danger is overblown.
"Bottom line, we believe adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," said RJR spokesman David Howard.
And a key argument of some business owners' legal challenges to smoking bans is that smoking customers will go elsewhere, cutting their profits.
But the surgeon general's report concludes that's not the case. It cites a list of studies that found no negative economic impact from city and state smoking bans -- including evidence that New York City restaurants and bars increased business by almost 9 percent after going smoke-free.
To help make the point, Carmona's office videotaped mayors of smoke-free cities and executives of smoke-free companies, including the founder of the Applebee's restaurant chain, saying that business got better when the haze cleared.
In addition to the scientific report, Carmona issued advice for consumers and employers Tuesday:
Choose smoke-free restaurants and other businesses, and thank them for going smoke-free.
Don't let anyone smoke near your child. Don't take your child to restaurants or other indoor places that allow smoking.
Smokers should never smoke around a sick relative.
Employers should make all indoor workspace smoke-free and not allow smoking near entrances, to protect the health of both customers and workers, and offer programs to help employees kick the habit.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Like global warming, the whole "smoking debate" has been politicized to the point where I honestly doubt there's any hope of us ever getting any unspun scientific data on it. There's simply too many parties with too much invested in motives that are usually ulterior on both sides.
Personally, I'll follow the centuries of human experience indicating that even first-hand smoking is about as unhealthy as eating a fatty diet, and like eating a fatty diet it can be done in moderation or carried to an extreme with reciprocating health repercussions. If you don't believe this, that's fine, you don't have to.
In regards to outlawing indoor smoking in private establishments, fuck that shit. If a place allows smoking in their establishment and you don't want a whif of smoke to taint your nostril for fear that you might spontaniously erupt with a head of cancerous polyps, don't fucking eat there. You don't have a right to eat there. If second hand smoke really IS that bad, places that allow smoking in their establishment will go out of business. The only restaraunts and bars around will be ones that don't allow smoking, and you get your way without having to violate the individual property rights that are the DNA of american jurisprudence! Hooray!
quote:
Maradon! screamed this from the crapper:
Existing is unhealthy, as it will inevitably kill you. Like most smoking alarmism, this report has the thick, rich taste of diatribe but is amazingly light on actual data. I can't believe it's not science! "30% more likely" than what? That makes a big difference, you know. Seen the same bullshit used over and over and over again in innumerable articles on the subject.
Well, you can always go to a library on a decent college campus and go look at the medical journals, if you're really that sick of the bullshit. Actually, they might have the stuff available online, now that I think about it.
quote:
Personally, I'll follow the centuries of human experience indicating that even first-hand smoking is about as unhealthy as eating a fatty diet, and like eating a fatty diet it can be done in moderation or carried to an extreme with reciprocating health repercussions. If you don't believe this, that's fine, you don't have to.
Eating a fatty diet only harms one person, well, and maybe the EMT that has to lift you out of your bed. Smoking has the potential, as this medical research indicates, to harm people who never smoke.
quote:
In regards to outlawing indoor smoking in private establishments, fuck that shit. If a place allows smoking in their establishment and you don't want a whif of smoke to taint your nostril for fear that you might spontaniously erupt with a head of cancerous polyps, don't fucking eat there. You don't have a right to eat there. If second hand smoke really IS that bad, places that allow smoking in their establishment will go out of business. The only restaraunts and bars around will be ones that don't allow smoking, and you get your way without having to violate the individual property rights that are the DNA of american jurisprudence! Hooray!
There are numerous, peer reviewed studies which indicate that smoking bans actually increase business in restaurants and bars.
quote:
And, my favorite:
Other studies -- at least 45 of them -- reach a different conclusion and suggest that smoking bans do hurt business. The majority of them were funded by tobacco companies, and most were not subject to peer-review.Most studies that report bans have an adverse effect on bars and restaurants center on perceptions or rely on sales estimates from proprietors instead of tax-collection figures that economists say are more objective.
I fail to see what's so horrible about a smoking ban. Does it lead down the slippery slope to....GASP...COMMUNISM!./aSLJkm; I doubt it. People grumble about it like I'm sure they grumbled about drunk driving laws, "By gosh, if I can't get my patrons shitfaced, and then let them drive home without having them get arrested, I'm gonna lose business!" , but in the end, we all just deal with it. Like it or not, we do live in a society, and we are obligated to limit just how harmful our behavior is to everyone else in it.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Well, you can always go to a library on a decent college campus and go look at the medical journals, if you're really that sick of the bullshit. Actually, they might have the stuff available online, now that I think about it.
Ah, the college campus: A time-honored bastion of absolute impartiality!
quote:
Eating a fatty diet only harms one person, well, and maybe the EMT that has to lift you out of your bed. Smoking has the potential, as this medical research indicates, to harm people who never smoke.
It doesn't have the potential to harm people who never smoke and don't hang out around people who do. And don't feed me that shit about "no safe amount" and people dying from walking past a smoker in an outdoor public park - people inhale greater amounts of shit that has far less dubious lethality every time they walk behind a car.
quote:
There are numerous, peer reviewed studies which indicate that smoking bans actually increase business in restaurants and bars.
You do realize that all "peer reviewed" means is that another scientist agreed to sponsor your shit so long as you scratch his back somewhere down the line, right? It's nothing but the science community's version of quid pro quo, it doesn't mean they're unbiased or right in the slightest.
Regardless, it really doesn't matter if a smoking ban would increase business or decrease business or make fairy dust fly out of the ass of every customer that walks through the door. The decision of what goes on with an individuals property is the right and responsibility of the individual and nobody else.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Karnaj booooze lime pole over bench lick:
I fail to see what's so horrible about a smoking ban. Does it lead down the slippery slope to....GASP...COMMUNISM!./aSLJkm; I doubt it.
Sacrificing individual rights in the name of the greater good is a core tenet of collectivism. So, yes, it does lead to communism! Nanny-state policies always do!
quote:
People grumble about it like I'm sure they grumbled about drunk driving laws, "By gosh, if I can't get my patrons shitfaced, and then let them drive home without having them get arrested, I'm gonna lose business!" , but in the end, we all just deal with it. Like it or not, we do live in a society, and we are obligated to limit just how harmful our behavior is to everyone else in it.
What you've done here is try to paint the effects second-hand smoking to be as lethal as getting hit by a drunk driver. This is the most alarmist article I've read in a while, and even IT doesn't imply anything even remotely close to that. Needless to say, your comparison is fairly off base.
Furthermore, unlike drunks, the smoke from smokers stays inside the establishment, and is not a concern or a threat to anybody in any public place.
quote:
Maradon! screamed this from the crapper:
Ah, the college campus: A time-honored bastion of absolute impartiality!
You can't be serious. You can't seriously think that scientific journals are subject to a vast, ovarching conspiracy of censorship and revision before they are deemed appropriate to be stored in the stacks of a campus library.
quote:
It doesn't have the potential to harm people who never smoke and don't hang out around people who do. And don't feed me that shit about "no safe amount" and people dying from walking past a smoker in an outdoor public park - people inhale greater amounts of shit that has far less dubious lethality every time they walk behind a car.
But what about the smoker's children? They can't get away from a parent who smokes. Point being that smoking negatively affects people around the smoker. Hell, even consuming a fatty diet might lead to a health problems for a kid who emulates his fatass parents.
quote:
You do realize that all "peer reviewed" means is that another scientist agreed to sponsor your shit so long as you scratch his back somewhere down the line, right? It's nothing but the science community's version of quid pro quo, it doesn't mean they're unbiased or right in the slightest.
Again, I must assume that you're joking. For fuck's sake, you sound like a creationist ranting about a global conspiracy of evilutionary biologists all covering each other's asses because they hate God. Peer review means just that; a scientist's peers evaluate his work as dispassionately as they can, and either confirm or reject his findings.
quote:
Regardless, it really doesn't matter if a smoking ban would increase business or decrease business or make fairy dust fly out of the ass of every customer that walks through the door. The decision of what goes on with an individuals property is the right and responsibility of the individual and nobody else.
Then why can't restaurant owners serve minors alcohol? Why can't a restaurant serve only Christians? I mean, they should be able to decide what goes on on their own property, up to excluding people who believe in Allah or who think that alcohol shouldn't be given to minors?
quote:
Sacrificing individual rights in the name of the greater good is a core tenet of collectivism. So, yes, it does lead to communism! Nanny-state policies always do!
So the fuck what? I can't go to work naked(but if I could, I would still wear shoes). I can't get drunk and then go for a little drive around the nearest playground. Is it really so fucking horrible that I have to sacrifice my right to take a shit in the parking lot of a grocery store in the name of public harmony and the greater good?
And moreover, what ethical system or legal document is the right to smoke wherever you want guaranteed?
quote:
What you've done here is try to paint the effects second-hand smoking to be as lethal as getting hit by a drunk driver. This is the most alarmist article I've read in a while, and even IT doesn't imply anything even remotely close to that. Needless to say, your comparison is fairly off base.Furthermore, unlike drunks, the smoke from smokers stays inside the establishment, and is not a concern or a threat to anybody in any public place.
Granted, getting hit by a drunk driver is far, far worse than being in a room with a smoker, but the latter is more prevalent than the former. And, if this research holds true in the future, it may very well come to light that more people die from second-hand smoke than die from drunk driving accidents. Certainly the prevalence of smoking means deleterious health effects to far more people, even only counting those children whose parents smoke around them.
But anyway, bars and restaurants are available to the public. Anyone can go into basically any restaurant or bar, assuming they meet trivial requirments (like wearing a shirt and shoes). But my point was more to this: why should the individual rights of people to get drunk and drive be usurped for the greater good? Just because some people don't want them or their to be killed by drunk drivers? I dunno, it sounds like the move of a collectivist nanny-state to me.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
Whether or not it's good for buisness, that is something for the establishment to decide. Supermarkets have realized that playing shitty music is good for buisness, but that does't mean it should be legislated.
quote:
We were all impressed when Karnaj wrote:
Then why can't restaurant owners serve minors alcohol? Why can't a restaurant serve only Christians?
For the first tobacco is still age restricted, a better anology would be "restourant ownders should not be allowed to serve anyone alchol, since the drunkard might hurt a minor"
The second is perfectly legal but would be bad for buisness.
Plus drinking and smoking at the same time is byfar the best use for both alchahol and tobacco.
quote:
We were all impressed when Karnaj wrote:
You can't be serious. You can't seriously think that scientific journals are subject to a vast, ovarching conspiracy of censorship and revision before they are deemed appropriate to be stored in the stacks of a campus library.
JAMA covering up the JFK assination! 
This entire post was written while smoking Leftover Mog fucked around with this message on 06-28-2006 at 05:41 PM.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
-- George Herbert Walker Bush
Rule with an iron fist.
quote:
x--KarnajO-('-'Q) :
You can't be serious. You can't seriously think that scientific journals are subject to a vast, ovarching conspiracy of censorship and revision before they are deemed appropriate to be stored in the stacks of a campus library.
You don't need a vast, overarching conspiracy to be the product of a cloistered and frequently extremely idealistic profession.
quote:
But what about the smoker's children? They can't get away from a parent who smokes. Point being that smoking negatively affects people around the smoker. Hell, even consuming a fatty diet might lead to a health problems for a kid who emulates his fatass parents.
Although also asinine, I see a more solid case for outlawing smoking around children for precisely that reason. The children can always move away from the smoke, though, kinda like how I did for 21 years. We're not discussing outlawing smoking around children, though, we're discussing outlawing smoking in private establishments.
quote:
Again, I must assume that you're joking. For fuck's sake, you sound like a creationist ranting about a global conspiracy of evilutionary biologists all covering each other's asses because they hate God. Peer review means just that; a scientist's peers evaluate his work as dispassionately as they can, and either confirm or reject his findings.
And who do we trust to make sure that peer reviews are dispassionate? Right, the reviewer. I'm not saying peer review is totally meaningless, it's a factor to consider just like everything else, but it doesn't turn a study into some kind of ultimately damning piece of evidence, it's just one more spin to consider: The spin of the author, the spin of the reviewer, and the spin of the person reading the review to you by way of an article like the one linked above.
quote:
Then why can't restaurant owners serve minors alcohol? Why can't a restaurant serve only Christians? I mean, they should be able to decide what goes on on their own property, up to excluding people who believe in Allah or who think that alcohol shouldn't be given to minors?
Restaraunts can't serve minors alcohol because doing so is illegal, because it has implications for the minor that it does not have for adults. Furthermore we deny rights to minors all the time, like it or not in american law minors are subhuman. Believing that alcohol shouldn't be given to minors isn't a matter of opinion, it's a law. (As a sidebar, look up the implications of Roe V. Wade and apply it to this exact scenario, the ruling effectively legalizes serving alcohol to minors in this case)
Establishments can and should rightly be able to serve only Christians or Muslims and deny service to people of any other faith. Not a damn thing wrong with that.
quote:
So the fuck what? I can't go to work naked(but if I could, I would still wear shoes). I can't get drunk and then go for a little drive around the nearest playground. Is it really so fucking horrible that I have to sacrifice my right to take a shit in the parking lot of a grocery store in the name of public harmony and the greater good?
I thought the whole fallacious argument that just because we have laws about some things it's ok to have laws about everything was below you, but here you are making it for the second time. Laws exist to propagate individual liberty, not to dictate people's behavior. You can't drink and drive because your right to get sloshed and get into a car runs the risk of violating someone else's right to live, and all the rest of their rights to boot, and in the end there is less freedom to go around. As for going to work naked, maybe you SHOULD be able to, so long as it isn't a health hazard to those around you. I honestly haven't seen the numbers for psychological disorders resulting from seing a hairy naked ass.
In the case of smoking in a private establishment, the right to allow this behavior on your property among consenting patrons does not conflict with any other rights.
quote:
And moreover, what ethical system or legal document is the right to smoke wherever you want guaranteed?
Nobody's asking for the right to smoke wherever they want guaranteed. Only that a property owner has the right to dictate the behavior of people in his private establishment within the constraints of law.
quote:
Granted, getting hit by a drunk driver is far, far worse than being in a room with a smoker, but the latter is more prevalent than the former.
You're missing one more crucial difference: When someone is hit by a drunk driver, they're not given a choice as to whether they want to be hit or not. When someone is goes into a smoke-filled room, they have the choice to stay or leave. This makes any effects they suffer from staying their own responsibility and nobody else's.
quote:
And, if this research holds true in the future, it may very well come to light that more people die from second-hand smoke than die from drunk driving accidents.Certainly the prevalence of smoking means deleterious health effects to far more people, even only counting those children whose parents smoke around them.
I'll believe it when I see it, and see it as a general consensus to which the only opposing arguments are from complete nutjobs. And so will everybody else, making restaraunts that allow smoking leper colonies that fail as a business. Then every reasonable restaraunt is 100% smoke free, and you get your way without having to violate some of the must fundimental rights that exist in this country. Hooray for capitalism!
quote:
But anyway, bars and restaurants are available to the public.
They're available to anybody that the owner of the establishment chooses to make them available to.
quote:
Anyone can go into basically any restaurant or bar, assuming they meet trivial requirments (like wearing a shirt and shoes). But my point was more to this: why should the individual rights of people to get drunk and drive be usurped for the greater good? Just because some people don't want them or their to be killed by drunk drivers? I dunno, it sounds like the move of a collectivist nanny-state to me.
Once again, you can't have the right to violate someone else's rights. Drunk driving does this. Smoking in a private establishment does not.
The good news is that you can still smoke in your house! for now
quote:
BeauChan impressed everyone with:
for now
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
-- George Herbert Walker Bush
quote:
x--BeauChanO-('-'Q) :
Toronto has already done all that...
The good news is that you can still smoke in your house! for now
And yet Toronto beer outlets sell to twelve year olds without carding them!
I'm not a big fan of the nanny state idea. It's already gone too far in many instances.
I love it. It's so nice to be able to have a night out with friends at a bar without having to wade through thick tendrils of stinking smoke. I can actually stay in without getting a headache, and not want to take a shower as soon as I'm outside. =p
Of course, there'll still be smoke just outside when smokers go out to do their thing, but that lasts all of 5 seconds before you're inside.
But well-being in society is just a silly liberal idea, according to Maradon. =(
quote:
Nina wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
But well-being in society is just a silly liberal idea, according to Maradon. =(
Catholics consider contraceptives to be for the "well-being" of others.
Anarchists consider the abolition of police forces to be for the "well-being" of others.
If a freedom is going to be taken away, it needs to be fought tooth and nail.
quote:
Kegwen said:
I'm not a big fan of the nanny state idea. It's already gone too far in many instances.
Case in point: The UK.
*waves his little socialist flag*
If an establishment is pro-smoking, then perhaps they should have a sign at the door stating so, just like nonsmoking places have no smoking signs.
Or perhaps they can do it like the Navy. No smoking in the spaces, but you are welcome to take a break at the smoke pit if time permits. The smoke pit is usually a wooden gazebo out in a lonely corner of a parking lot.
quote:
Maradon! thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
And yet Toronto beer outlets sell to twelve year olds without carding them!
"hur hur we sell our crap beer to underage people."
Where the hell do you get a lame idea like that? The Liquor Control Board of Ontario always asks for I.D and there is a RARE case where somewhere in central and northern ontario where some twelve year old might get a case of beer.
quote:
We were all impressed when Lechium wrote:
"hur hur we sell our crap beer to underage people."Where the hell do you get a lame idea like that? The Liquor Control Board of Ontario always asks for I.D and there is a RARE case where somewhere in central and northern ontario where some twelve year old might get a case of beer.
Because CANADA, ASSHOLE.
quote:
"My job is to make sure we keep a light on this thing," he said.
quote:
Karnaj wrote this stupid crap:
Again, I must assume that you're joking. For fuck's sake, you sound like a creationist ranting about a global conspiracy of evilutionary biologists all covering each other's asses because they hate God. Peer review means just that; a scientist's peers evaluate his work as dispassionately as they can, and either confirm or reject his findings.
He may not be a creationist, but he's doing the same damn thing.
quote:
Maradon! still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
You don't need a vast, overarching conspiracy to be the product of a cloistered and frequently extremely idealistic profession.
Oh, I understand now. All of science is invalid because universities are liberal. Come on.
quote:
Although also asinine, I see a more solid case for outlawing smoking around children for precisely that reason. The children can always move away from the smoke, though, kinda like how I did for 21 years. We're not discussing outlawing smoking around children, though, we're discussing outlawing smoking in private establishments.
The two can be linked, though, as I'll show you further down.
quote:
And who do we trust to make sure that peer reviews are dispassionate? Right, the reviewer. I'm not saying peer review is totally meaningless, it's a factor to consider just like everything else, but it doesn't turn a study into some kind of ultimately damning piece of evidence, it's just one more spin to consider: The spin of the author, the spin of the reviewer, and the spin of the person reading the review to you by way of an article like the one linked above.
And the penny drops: you have no idea what peer review is, or how it works. Peer review is done because the publisher doesn't want to look like a complete idiot for publishing a report or study or article with huge flaws in it. Peer review is done at the behest of the publisher, not the author. A scientist doesn't take is manuscript down the hall to his colleague's office and says, "Hey Bob, you want to rubber-stamp this for me so I can get it into next month's JAMA?"
No, a publisher sends the manuscript off to several experts in the field upon which the article is based. They then review the article's methodolgy, premises, and conclusions, and make their recommendations to publish the article as is, publish with the privisio that that author revise something, or reject it conditionally or outright. In the event of disparte opinions, the publisher will seek the opinion of ever more experts. Why the hell do you think creationist articles and other pseudoscience almost never appear in peer-reviewed journals, or, if they do, they are almost always torn to shreds in subsequent publications?
Scientists, furthermore, are trained to be as dispassionate as possible about their work. Sure, we're all human with human foibles, but they make effort to keep their personal opinions away from their work. How else could there be profoundly religious evolutionary biologists, or cosmologists? They learn to detatch the irrational part of their brain at work, and the rational part of their brain when they worship. The point is that unless we're given a reason to suspect bias, we shouldn't. One area you are right in is suspecting bias from the media, as they have given us reason in the past to suspect them. Unless you subscribe a conspiracy theory, however, there is nothing to suggest that the bulk of the world's scientists are pushing some sort of agenda by seizing control of the peer review system.
quote:
Restaraunts can't serve minors alcohol because doing so is illegal, because it has implications for the minor that it does not have for adults. Furthermore we deny rights to minors all the time, like it or not in american law minors are subhuman. Believing that alcohol shouldn't be given to minors isn't a matter of opinion, it's a law. (As a sidebar, look up the implications of Roe V. Wade and apply it to this exact scenario, the ruling effectively legalizes serving alcohol to minors in this case)
Wonderful; you agree, then, that rule of law is necessary and desirable.
quote:
Establishments can and should rightly be able to serve only Christians or Muslims and deny service to people of any other faith. Not a damn thing wrong with that.
Except that it's intolerant, small-minded, and backward. I should note that I'm not talking about a place of worship or other area whose primary purpose is to allow the faithful to exercise their faith.
quote:
In the case of smoking in a private establishment, the right to allow this behavior on your property among consenting patrons does not conflict with any other rights.
So, again, what about children whose parents drag them to these establishments? They can't consent. And despite their subhuman legal status, they are still entitled certain rights by virtue of being human beings. If you can't guarantee an environment of 100% consent when engaging in unhealthy behavior, then it is wrong to maintain the conditions whereby the unhealthy behavior takes place.
Now, the consequence of this is that if you CAN get 100% consent, the unhealthy behavior should be fine. Therefore, you're right insofar that there should be private establishments allowing smoking, provided they can obtain 100% consent. Since children cannot consent (because they cannot legally smoke), they must be prohibited from entering such an establishment.
quote:
You're missing one more crucial difference: When someone is hit by a drunk driver, they're not given a choice as to whether they want to be hit or not. When someone is goes into a smoke-filled room, they have the choice to stay or leave. This makes any effects they suffer from staying their own responsibility and nobody else's.
Again, children cannot, especially when their parents take them to this place. Parents to not have the right to overtly harm their children; laws preventing child abuse show this, and based on this data, second smoke does overtly harm children. Eliminate the children and there's no problem.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
That has to be some of the least logical, politically-blindered bullshit I've ever heard. Onos! Don't go to the LIBRARY! Everything in the LIBRARY is suspect, because I don't agree with certain college administrations. 
For someone pretending to be an intellectual, he's got absolutely no grasp of how logic or argumentation work.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
And I got beer in Canada when I was 14, wasn't carded (didn't know it was beer when I ordered it!)
You have the right to smoke; I have the right to not be part of it.
quote:
Almond was listening to Cher while typing:
There are laws against public intoxication, why not public smoking? Smokers can smoke all they want in the privacy of their own smoking clubs and homes. I hate going to a public building and have to breathe that second hand toxins as the selfish bastards try to slowly kill themselves and me right under the no smoking signs.You have the right to smoke; I have the right to not be part of it.
Hi Somthor/Jackman.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Hi Somthor/Jackman.
Hi Parce. Is it safe yet?
