They're Coming After You

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Because it is so easy for each and every person to just change the job at the drop of a hat.
 
Abomb-baby said:


The issue isn't about second hand smoke. Its about control and Government telling you whats best for you. Is smoking healthy? No. But there are plenty of unhealthy things that people do that the Government hasn't gotten themselves involved in. People who go to Pubs and bars where there is smoking are making a choice. The funy thing is that where I live we have Casinos that are run by the tribes and they don't fall under state law. So basically, the smokers just moved. I just think that we are on a slippery slope regarding government involvement with these issues.

My rule of thumb is that if the action only harms myself then the government should stay out of it. If my action may potentially harm others, then the government should get involved. One of the basic functions of government is to keep it's citizens safe from each other.

I'll ask again:

Whose rights are more important? The smoker or the non-smoker?
 
I smoke. I've adjusted to the limitations. No big deal. Nonsmokers trump and should. (And I've had some fun conversations with people I never would have met while we were outside smoking in the rain--nothing quite bonds you like being a social pariah) While I was always a fairly considerate smoker, I'm obviously a more considerate smoker when I'm forced to be. The laws don't bother me.

I suppose if they make a law about smoking in my own house, I'd probably break it.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
The problem I see is that most of these "articles" posted by Iron Horse(and I use the quotes because this one was horribly written and lack any real purpose) completely damage their cause. Comparing it to Nazi Germany? Come on!!!:mad:

Like I said, I understand there are extremes on both sides. And both extremes bother me. Anyone who thinks they should be able to smoke anywhere at anytime and deny all evidence of second hand smoke is an idiot. Just like anyone trying to make someone purchase a license to smoke is an idiot.


BonoVoxSupastar,

I don't know why you seem to continually misread the point I am trying to make.

As for secondhand smoke:

You post your evidence and I'll do the the tit for for tat.


Me first!!! *cough...i have a cold :)

If secondhand smoke is a killer, then most of the the baby boomers should be dead now because they were raised surrounded by smoke everywhere.
 
the iron horse said:
If secondhand smoke is a killer, then most of the the baby boomers should be dead now because they were raised surrounded by smoke everywhere.

That line of thinking does not work because if you look at the actual percentages of smokers that develop lung cancer it tops at around 20%. The majority of smokers will never develop lung cancer, but these chances are 10-60 fold higher than the nonsmoking population. This is not including the slew of other diseases that smoking contributes to.

Here's an actual number for you, about 3000 nonsmokers die each year from breathing in secondhand smoke. That's straight out my pathology book and you don't mess with Robbins and Cotran. Secondhand smoke is bad for anybody. Again most people won't develop cancer, but those 3000 people die needlessly because of other people.
 
the iron horse said:

I don't know why you seem to continually misread the point I am trying to make.

Well then why don't you try to spell out your point for all of us.


the iron horse said:

As for secondhand smoke:

You post your evidence and I'll do the the tit for for tat.


Me first!!! *cough...i have a cold :)

If secondhand smoke is a killer, then most of the the baby boomers should be dead now because they were raised surrounded by smoke everywhere.

This isn't evidence. And I can sit here and post scientific evidence, but you have a history of denying science for articles of circumstantial evidence and pseudo-science.

Let me ask you this, do you even believe firsthand smoke can kill?
 
Soon every one will have to get up early to do their daily exercises like they did in China under Mao. The problem with all these political correctness, anti smoking and anti fat stuff is that there are more serious problems in this country that need to be taken care of. Banning smoking doesn't clean up the smog in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is one city that needs mass transit because it has the worse air quality in the United States and I don't think that its from second hand smoke. Car exhaust isn't too great for asthma and can give you cancer. Oliver Cromwell is alive and well in America.
 
the iron horse said:
My answer to the past two post:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm


Take care

See this is why I no longer really bother with your posts anymore. I asked you two very specific questions and all you do is post a website, and one that is once again paticularly shitty. It's just a vomit of blurbs from different studies and of course the obligatory nazi references.

I always thought you libertarians thought for yourselves. It's ok to use specific articles from websites, but just throwing up an entire website shows a lack of real thought and reason.
 
watergate said:
he problem with all these political correctness, anti smoking and anti fat stuff is that there are more serious problems in this country that need to be taken care of.

Given the number of obese people in this country and the widespread implications that their potential poor health has, I would say that the anti-fat stuff is pretty important.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


See this is why I no longer really bother with your posts anymore. I asked you two very specific questions and all you do is post a website, and one that is once again paticularly shitty. It's just a vomit of blurbs from different studies and of course the obligatory nazi references.

I always thought you libertarians thought for yourselves. It's ok to use specific articles from websites, but just throwing up an entire website shows a lack of real thought and reason.


I'm just a fool laughing about freedom.

I know I will be dead soon,


but with freedom comes faith :)
 
the iron horse said:



I'm just a fool laughing about freedom.

I know I will be dead soon,


but with freedom comes faith :)

Freedom to any sane person means, in part and for a great example, you can't blow a puff of harmful smoke into someone's face over and over again. Even if you think it means no difference, no harm, no foul. Once again you're arguing for supposed libertarian principles that make NO sense. The idea of libertarianism, is that you can't fuck with me in my own space of the "bar" from one example. If you are blowing second hand smoke, you violate your own principle, understand?

You cannot infringe another's liberty, property and space with your actions and claim yourself absolved. Wise up, please.
 
Back
Top Bottom