But it make sense, when you think about it. After all, when you're getting fisted, you can't smoke, because you're either clenching your teeth in agony or your mouth is wide open, sobbing and screaming.

What?

quote:

---

Because meanwhile, these health fanatics, when it comes to smoking, encourage every form of polymorphous perversity, which, by the way, does have public health consequences -- but no, no, no, no. That -- that -- you know, anal sex and fisting, that's part of our deepest privacy rights.

---

This made me giggle. How does anal sex or fisting have PUBLIC health consequences?

*or my hangover's worse than I thought

quote:

---

Vernaltemptress really knows where their towel is...
For some reason, when I try to read that spittlearticle, I only get the sense that the author is pulling things out of context and is doing a bad job of attempting to make a point.

*or my hangover's worse than I thought

---

She makes it sound like a bad thing.

Now, I never read anything Ann Coulter says. ever. I know about her entirely through "outrageous" links and articles posted by lefties.

She uses so much over-the-top rhetoric that it's painfully easy to pick and choose quotes and make her look like a fanatical idiot, however the overall point that she makes is entirely valid - that anybody who would oppose things like the Texas sodomy law on the basis of individual liberty would be hypocritical to advocate a smoking ban.

quote:

---

Maradon! painfully thought these words up:
She uses so much over-the-top rhetoric that it's painfully easy to pick and choose quotes and make her look like a fanatical idiot, however the overall point that she makes is entirely valid - that anybody who would oppose things like the Texas sodomy law on the basis of individual liberty would be hypocritical to advocate a smoking ban.

---

It's not a valid analogy in the case of most smoking bans since the majority of them apply to public places, it is illegal to fist someone in the middle of a courthouse in most jurisdictions. It may be slightly valid in the case of smoking bans in private businesses, which do conflict with property rights to a large degree. The only valid argument in favour of them I can see is concern over the health of workers in those businesses and even that is somewhat flimsy.

quote:

---

Moding:
It's not a valid analogy in the case of most smoking bans since the majority of them apply to public places

---

The colorado smoking ban in question does apply to private institutions, like bars and restaraunts.

You've been saying a lot of decidedly un-collectivist things lately, Mod. Are you feeling ok?

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-07-2006 at 02:27 PM.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Maradon! absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Many conservatives believe that AIDS is transmitted primarily through homosexual sex. This is what she's talking about when she referrs to the public health concequences of the "polymorphous perversity" that is advocated by the left.

Now, I never read anything Ann Coulter says. ever. I know about her entirely through "outrageous" links and articles posted by lefties.

She uses so much over-the-top rhetoric that it's painfully easy to pick and choose quotes and make her look like a fanatical idiot, however the overall point that she makes is entirely valid - that anybody who would oppose things like the Texas sodomy law on the basis of individual liberty would be hypocritical to advocate a smoking ban.

---

Your analogy doesn't work because sex is between consenting adults, whereas smoking is not a matter of individual liberty inasmuch as it inflicts serious adverse affects on bystanders. It's exactly the same thing as preventing someone from saying, "I'm going to swing this razor blade on a rope now in the public square; if you don't want to be hurt, you shouldn't put yourself in danger by being around me." You, on the other hand, argue that people should just move out of the way because it's not fair to prevent people from doing things in public that are dangerous to others.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 07-07-2006 at 04:00 PM.

quote:

---

Peanut butter ass Shaq Bloodsage booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Your analogy doesn't work because sex is between consenting adults, whereas smoking is not a matter of individual liberty inasmuch as it inflicts serious adverse affects on bystanders.

---

Bystanders can revoke their consent by simply moving away, or not going around smokers while they're smoking. Smokers inside a private establishment present zero risk to anybody not in that establishment.

quote:

---

It's exactly the same thing as preventing someone from saying, "I'm going to swing this razor blade on a rope now in the public square; if you don't want to be hurt, you shouldn't put yourself in danger by being around me." You, on the other hand, argue that people should just move out of the way because it's not fair to prevent people from doing things in public that are dangerous to others.

---

Once again, we're not talking about a public indoor smoking ban - which I support - we're talking about a ban on smoking in private establishments.

Nor does the lame "a restaurant isn't a public place" argument work. . .because in most jurisdictions one can be arrested for public intoxication in restaurants and bars (even in your own car as a passenger in some places), so the distinction you're trying to draw simply doesn't exist. There's plenty of precedent in the law for such a ban in places frequented by the public, even if they are "private" property.

Or would you also argue that it's okay to assault someone in a restaurant, it being the responsibility of the person threatened to find someplace safer to eat?

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 07-08-2006 at 05:38 AM.

The problem is her points are buried under such a pile of horrible rhetoric, borderline psychotic insults and accusations, as well as outright lies that it's not worth reading.

Hence the problem with all pundits: intellectualism mixed with lying and craziness doesn't work.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan's account was hax0red to write:

Hence the problem with all pundits: intellectualism mixed with lying and craziness doesn't work.

---

But being an intellectual alone won't get you noticed.

They've instituted a zero-tolerance policy on my college campus and the reasoning was that x number of people die a year due to secondhand smoke. So I want to see the bubbles these people live in that allows them to isolate something like that.

quote:

---

From the book of Lyinar Ka`Bael, chapter 3, verse 16:
I still want to see the vaccuum that had people living in all their lives that led to them being able to point to secondhand smoke and absolutely, positively nothing else, not genetics or other things in the environment or lifestyle or anything, as the cause of their death.

They've instituted a zero-tolerance policy on my college campus and the reasoning was that x number of people die a year due to secondhand smoke. So I want to see the bubbles these people live in that allows them to isolate something like that.

---

Smoke turns your lungs black.

Secondhand smoke being a facter in the death of a nonsmoker with blackened lungs is a logical conclusion, imo.

quote:

---

When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Azakias said:
Smoke turns your lungs black.

Secondhand smoke being a facter in the death of a nonsmoker with blackened lungs is a logical conclusion, imo.

---

Pff, that's what the anti-tobacco hatemongers want you to think. As it turns out, large amounts of people are in fact moonlighting as coal miners while sleepwalking.

quote:

---

Azakias thought about the meaning of life:
Smoke turns your lungs black.

Secondhand smoke being a facter in the death of a nonsmoker with blackened lungs is a logical conclusion, imo.

---

Just living in a moderately urban enviroment will blacken a persons lungs to a degree. Whether they spend a good deal of time around smokers or not.

If someones lungs were blackened enough to have that considered a primary factor in thier death, then they were lying or smoking something.

That's not to say it doesn't contribute, or make things worse, but it's hardly a definitive example.

Smoking is a bit like drinking. It's something that could reasonably be expected to happen, or at least be exposed to, in a social environment. With drinking, we can measure at what point alcohol saturation of a system starts to become toxic, and we measure degree of intoxication as one side of the freedom:cost ratio. We know that at X blood alcohol level, you are Y likely to have an accident, which upsets people. Z is the acceptable number of accidents before people feel their freedom is being unpleasantly infringed upon, which upsets them. So you say a blood alcohol level of .08 is the maximum level allowable in a driver by law and don't legislate how much they can drink otherwise, but you do legislate things in such a way that if the level goes higher and they drive, they can be charged with some really hardcore charges. At that point there's no dangerous threat to personal liberty (no one is honestly saying "gee let's stop selling alcohol at all!"...at least no one in any sort of majority), and the bickering becomes over where the mark is. Bartenders are now suable if they serve someone alcohol to the point of obvious intoxication and let them drive. Insurance rates at alcohol-selling locations is higher due to the possibility of some idiot suing. Likewise, the government is the one who issues the license and is the one who makes sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Violators get a serious fine and repeat offenders get their license pulled.

You could do something similar with smoking, I would think. We have the technology to detect smoke levels in a given area. Put them in bars or restaurants or whatever and make it the responsibility of the owner to ensure they're operational. We know from experimentation the saturation/absorption rates of the average individual's lungs in regards to smoke. So draw a line where the acceptable risk is unacceptable. There are plenty of ways to keep the smoke saturation down; better air circulation is one. A lot of the tests in the lab I work at involve toxic chemicals, burning small amounts of oil and so forth for flashpoint testing, etc. The place would reek and be a danger if it wasn't for the fact that the air is exchanged 15 times every hour. Granted, it's a pretty big facility, but you could scale something similar down, I imagine. But the easiest way is to check the air quality and have it set to some sort of monitoring device. Smoke saturation gets too high, and stays that way for too long, small fine. Or whatever. The fine details can be hashed out.

The point I'm making is that there is a middle ground that uses an existing system as a model. It could be made to work, and is infinitely preferable to start cutting into the rights of personal individuals or privately-owned companies on privately-owned property where people voluntarily come to work. Once you start cutting into those sorts of rights, it's very difficult to ever undo it.

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
I wouldn't legislate any sort of "no smoking in public" policy. What if you want to have a cookout at the park? Or a bonfire in your back yard? If you ban smoking in public places, it's bad enough, but banning it in PRIVATELY-OWNED territory is a violation of the worst sort. What if you want to have a cookout at a state park? Lots of smoke there. Can't be healthy. Hell the way some people cook burgers is probably unhealthy. What if you want to have a bonfire on your privately-owned property and invite folks to it?

Smoking is a bit like drinking. It's something that could reasonably be expected to happen, or at least be exposed to, in a social environment. With drinking, we can measure at what point alcohol saturation of a system starts to become toxic, and we measure degree of intoxication as one side of the freedom:cost ratio. We know that at X blood alcohol level, you are Y likely to have an accident, which upsets people. Z is the acceptable number of accidents before people feel their freedom is being unpleasantly infringed upon, which upsets them. So you say a blood alcohol level of .08 is the maximum level allowable in a driver by law and don't legislate how much they can drink otherwise, but you do legislate things in such a way that if the level goes higher and they drive, they can be charged with some really hardcore charges. At that point there's no dangerous threat to personal liberty (no one is honestly saying "gee let's stop selling alcohol at all!"...at least no one in any sort of majority), and the bickering becomes over where the mark is. Bartenders are now suable if they serve someone alcohol to the point of obvious intoxication and let them drive. Insurance rates at alcohol-selling locations is higher due to the possibility of some idiot suing. Likewise, the government is the one who issues the license and is the one who makes sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Violators get a serious fine and repeat offenders get their license pulled.

You could do something similar with smoking, I would think. We have the technology to detect smoke levels in a given area. Put them in bars or restaurants or whatever and make it the responsibility of the owner to ensure they're operational. We know from experimentation the saturation/absorption rates of the average individual's lungs in regards to smoke. So draw a line where the acceptable risk is unacceptable. There are plenty of ways to keep the smoke saturation down; better air circulation is one. A lot of the tests in the lab I work at involve toxic chemicals, burning small amounts of oil and so forth for flashpoint testing, etc. The place would reek and be a danger if it wasn't for the fact that the air is exchanged 15 times every hour. Granted, it's a pretty big facility, but you could scale something similar down, I imagine. But the easiest way is to check the air quality and have it set to some sort of monitoring device. Smoke saturation gets too high, and stays that way for too long, small fine. Or whatever. The fine details can be hashed out.

The point I'm making is that there is a middle ground that uses an existing system as a model. It could be made to work, and is infinitely preferable to start cutting into the rights of personal individuals or privately-owned companies on privately-owned property where people voluntarily come to work. Once you start cutting into those sorts of rights, it's very difficult to ever undo it.

---

Yeah, you already posted your opinion once. No need to repeat it and make it longer.

quote:

---

From the book of Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael, chapter 3, verse 16:
I wouldn't legislate any sort of "no smoking in public" policy. What if you want to have a cookout at the park? Or a bonfire in your back yard? If you ban smoking in public places, it's bad enough, but banning it in PRIVATELY-OWNED territory is a violation of the worst sort. What if you want to have a cookout at a state park? Lots of smoke there. Can't be healthy. Hell the way some people cook burgers is probably unhealthy. What if you want to have a bonfire on your privately-owned property and invite folks to it?

Smoking is a bit like drinking. It's something that could reasonably be expected to happen, or at least be exposed to, in a social environment. With drinking, we can measure at what point alcohol saturation of a system starts to become toxic, and we measure degree of intoxication as one side of the freedom:cost ratio. We know that at X blood alcohol level, you are Y likely to have an accident, which upsets people. Z is the acceptable number of accidents before people feel their freedom is being unpleasantly infringed upon, which upsets them. So you say a blood alcohol level of .08 is the maximum level allowable in a driver by law and don't legislate how much they can drink otherwise, but you do legislate things in such a way that if the level goes higher and they drive, they can be charged with some really hardcore charges. At that point there's no dangerous threat to personal liberty (no one is honestly saying "gee let's stop selling alcohol at all!"...at least no one in any sort of majority), and the bickering becomes over where the mark is. Bartenders are now suable if they serve someone alcohol to the point of obvious intoxication and let them drive. Insurance rates at alcohol-selling locations is higher due to the possibility of some idiot suing. Likewise, the government is the one who issues the license and is the one who makes sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Violators get a serious fine and repeat offenders get their license pulled.

You could do something similar with smoking, I would think. We have the technology to detect smoke levels in a given area. Put them in bars or restaurants or whatever and make it the responsibility of the owner to ensure they're operational. We know from experimentation the saturation/absorption rates of the average individual's lungs in regards to smoke. So draw a line where the acceptable risk is unacceptable. There are plenty of ways to keep the smoke saturation down; better air circulation is one. A lot of the tests in the lab I work at involve toxic chemicals, burning small amounts of oil and so forth for flashpoint testing, etc. The place would reek and be a danger if it wasn't for the fact that the air is exchanged 15 times every hour. Granted, it's a pretty big facility, but you could scale something similar down, I imagine. But the easiest way is to check the air quality and have it set to some sort of monitoring device. Smoke saturation gets too high, and stays that way for too long, small fine. Or whatever. The fine details can be hashed out.

The point I'm making is that there is a middle ground that uses an existing system as a model. It could be made to work, and is infinitely preferable to start cutting into the rights of personal individuals or privately-owned companies on privately-owned property where people voluntarily come to work. Once you start cutting into those sorts of rights, it's very difficult to ever undo it.

---

No one thinks you're smarter for using lots of words.