The anti-smoking thread - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-09-2007, 01:39 PM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Read other thread, there is too much crossover.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 01:47 PM   #77
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:51 PM
No. Bring it up here. I read the other thread, but I think it needs to be discussed here. The employees are the reason there are indoor smoking bans, not some stupid anti-private property conspiracy.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 01:54 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje
Thanks, Lara! Looks like a duplex means the same thing.
I always thought a duplex was a flat. Guess I learnt something new today.
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 01:58 PM   #79
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lara Mullen

I always thought a duplex was a flat. Guess I learnt something new today.
Usually they are (mine was - basement and ground floor). The one you posted could be called a townhouse, but usually there are several townhouses in a row, not just two residences connected. Some people (probably myself included) would just call it an apartment (something box-shaped that has 2+ residences). So many large old homes here have been converted into 4-8 residences, we just refer to it as it's own apartment building.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:07 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 PM
What a landowner can do on property that they own and what they allow patrons to do will cross onto issues of property rights; it isn't a conspiracy it's an obvious concequence of getting the government to stick a blanket ban in place. One could almost feel as if you think you are saying that only a conspiracy theorist could see that as a problem that conflicts with their own philosophy.

The reasons that people want smoking bans are great; but the concept of the blanket ban and the means to that end via government coercion is wrong.

Now as for protecting employees it is a scientific fact that exposure to second hand smoke is detrimental; it has does all the damage that the smoke does through the smokers lungs and long term exposure will deliver the concequences; now the question is this - are employees consenting to this exposure by continuing to work a job where they are being exposed, are employers liable to the health damages incurred, is the employer legally bound to maintain a healthy work environment and how may that be delivered - bit it better ventilation systems to keep smoking areas contained or banning smoking to protect themselves from future lawsuits (and maybe even attract all that extra business that non-smoking venues will attract).

Im not pro-smoking - I have never taken a drag of a cigarette or joint, I am not disputing the damage it does to you and those around you but I oppose statist initiatives to dissuade smokers (thankfully they not only pay regular taxes like the rest of us they put in a lot of sin tax).

Of course none of these arguments about employee risks apply to the other things that some see as places where the state should get involved like greasy burgers, sugar loaded drinks, high proof spirits and certain drinks containing thujone. So let there be robust debate about smoking; about what is consensual exposure, about what rules venue owners can force their clientelle to abide by, about what role governments have in those rules and what liability smoking venues have from lawsuits because right now it looks like people who know whats better for everybody else wants to regulate a bad habbit out of existence.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:09 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

The reasons that people want smoking bans are great; but the concept of the blanket ban and the means to that end via government coercion is wrong.
What about all the other blanket bans? Sex, being drunk, peeing, certain breeds of dogs....You're advocating to reverse them all?
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:23 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Sex between adults is consensual - I don't support harming minors as they by definition cannot give consent. Urination (I assume in public) is either vandalising sombodies property and/or indecent exposure, violent dog breeds do harm people when owners are irresponsible; the liberty of being allowed to breed Rottweillers must be conditional upon being responsible so in the interests of public safety regulation is neccessary (if we want to live in a civil society we must surrender the idea of anarchic total liberty, we want roads, schools, running water and emergency rooms then the people will need to pay taxes, obey the law and be responsible).

A civil society can still maximise individual liberties - and that is where the debate must be centered, we need people to defend the right to do the stupid things because it's very easy to erode freedoms in the name of security; security from terrorism, security from crime, security from drugs, security from internet pornography and the security of not having any smoking wherever we go.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:37 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

Lastly I assume that all of you pro-freedom folks who support the blanket ban on the basis of second hand smoke also support the decriminalisation of drugs that don't effect other people; are doing lines of coke and injecting heroin allowable (in principle).
Assume what you want, but I think it's disgusting to make that comparison.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:40 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra
A non smoker shouldn't have to decide not see a band or breathe filthy air because the club has people smoking in it. The air should be good for everyone. And the smokers can still smoke -- they just have to go outside to do so. How in the world is that infringing on their liberty?

Uhm.....you've given up?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:42 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Whats to be ashamed of - people mess their lives up with drugs even though they are illegal, we waste so much money locking them away and it still doesn't solve the problem (which will always be there).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:45 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Whats to be ashamed of - people mess their lives up with drugs even though they are illegal, we waste so much money locking them away and it still doesn't solve the problem (which will always be there).
Either I have totally lost the plot of this thread or you're dragging this discussion into all sorts of areas that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:48 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Martha said to keep it in this thread; smoking sucks this is the result

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:49 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Yip. It is.
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:51 PM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Given the cold hard facts people get about cigarettes from childhood, this is a lame-ass excuse to start what everyone knows is a deadly, disgusting, foul habit.

Everyone 'knows' that the deadly, disgusting habit of driving automobiles and motorbikes causes carbon monoxide pollution, which is seriously injurious to the health of others.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 03:12 PM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Which is why a lot of people support regulating CO2 and other emissions, but that's a topic for another thread...
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com