The anti-smoking thread - Page 5 - 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, 01:09 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 04:55 AM
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, 01:23 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 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, 01:37 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,739
Local Time: 10:55 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, 01:40 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:55 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, 01:42 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 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, 01:45 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,934
Local Time: 09:55 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, 01:48 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Martha said to keep it in this thread; smoking sucks this is the result

A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 01:49 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,934
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Yip. It is.
Laura M is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 01:51 PM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:55 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, 02:12 PM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Which is why a lot of people support regulating CO2 and other emissions, but that's a topic for another thread...
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:29 PM   #91
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Martha said to keep it in this thread; smoking sucks this is the result

This is your brain.





This is your brain on CRACK.
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:29 PM   #92
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

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).
You seem to be assuming that employers will do things voluntarily, when in fact history shows otherwise.
martha is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 02:45 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Historicism is a highlight of authoritrian systems according to some; employers will act in their own interests - and if that interest is making more money by running a clean non-smoking venue then they will do that and if it means covering their arses from loosing house and home to a former employees lawsuit or fines and workplace investigations then they will do that. You seem to assume that regulation and prohibition is the solution.

Do you think that society needs the state to step in when people do things that aren't in their best interests?
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 03:03 PM   #94
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Historicism is a highlight of authoritrian systems according to some; employers will act in their own interests - and if that interest is making more money by running a clean non-smoking venue then they will do that and if it means covering their arses from loosing house and home to a former employees lawsuit or fines and workplace investigations then they will do that. You seem to assume that regulation and prohibition is the solution.
Why wait for lawsuits and dead and injured people?
martha is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 03:11 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Because there is a question of consensuality on behalf of the employee versis the obligations of the employer given the known damage that second hand smoke does. There are multiple sides to the argument of bans and it doesn't boil down to good versus evil.

If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 03:25 PM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.

And automobiles.
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 03:26 PM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Well that goes without saying
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 04:46 PM   #98
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,212
Local Time: 04:55 AM
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.

When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.

People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.

"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.

The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.

An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.

Several residents, doctors and representatives from the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Fusion Bangor development group spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.

"Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can't protect themselves," he said.

But the ordinance also had its critics.

Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There's already too much government intervention in people's lives, she said.

Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a "feel- good option" that was not intended to protect children but rather to "moralize" against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 04:54 PM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 PM
because kids in cars can't consent and harming them is child abuse.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 04:57 PM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Because there is a question of consensuality on behalf of the employee versis the obligations of the employer given the known damage that second hand smoke does.
The rights of the employees to not contract cancer and other diseases associated with smoking come before any rights of employers who allow smoking in their workplaces.

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.
I'm only talking about employees and employers here.
__________________

martha 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 03:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×