They're Coming After You - Page 2 - 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 02-26-2008, 12:50 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Well, the point is that government got involved to a large extent due to other people being involved, second-hand smoke, and many people asking, or even demanding, government to take a step.
The more people are pushing for legal action against obesity, the more you will see in state or governmental laws regarding that issue.
__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 12:53 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government?
How does Mrs Smith have a say in whether she wants herself or her child exposed to second hand smoke in a subway or public buildings?
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 02:24 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Government telling you whats best for you.
And if "the government" is doing this as a response to demands from its citizens? You know, democracy? Then what?
martha is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 03:14 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


And if "the government" is doing this as a response to demands from its citizens? You know, democracy? Then what?
First off, I'm not talking about a referendum by the people. I'm also not talking about a subway platform or a bus stop. I was specifically talking about a bar, where there is an expectation of smokers. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. Where I live, the office of public health unilaterally decided to impose a smoking ban in restaraunts and bars. It was illegal because the office didn't have authority to create law. However, I like it when the people are actually involved rather than some politician coming out and saying, "this is what the people want." I can make my own choices, can I not? If I don't want to smell smoke in a bar, I can choose to patronize a bar that doesnt allow smoking. People can make choices with their wallets. The smoking ban is getting out of hand. I don't even smoke. There are places in California that have banned smoking ANYWHERE within city limits.
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 03:17 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
The issue isn't about second hand smoke.
Uh ... that's exactly what the issue is.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 04:10 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,560
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby


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.
Just wait and see what happens if the government takes healthcare completely over. The slope could get pretty slippery in order to keep the costs down.
randhail is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 04:58 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
I can make my own choices, can I not?
I'll ask again: What about the employees who don't want to breathe in the smoke of the addicts?
martha is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 04:58 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail
The slope could get pretty slippery in order to keep the costs down.
Because the private insurance companies are much better at this!
martha is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 05:09 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


I'll ask again: What about the employees who don't want to breathe in the smoke of the addicts?
Its called finding another job. This was the argument used when the state put it to a vote a couple of years ago. First off, these people were already working somewhere where smoking was PERMITTED. If you were so concerned about the dangers of SHS, why did take the job? Thats like a firefighter saying he doesn't want to run into a burning building. Its what you signed up for. You had a reasonable expectation that you were going to be breathing in SHS, and you were ok with taking that risk. As an adult I would expect you to either decide to live with your choice or find another career path.
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 05:15 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby


Its called finding another job.
The libertarian fantasy!

Where the rights of the addict and the business owner are more equal than the rights of the employee.

I guess cancer and respiratory diseases should be a part of the job. Tell me, does the libertarian fantasy allow theses diseases to be covered by workers' comp? Or are these poor bastards on their own?

What about when the employees are a part of the electorate that decides democratically to prohibit cancer-causing chemicals in their workplaces?
martha is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 05:19 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Because it is so easy for each and every person to just change the job at the drop of a hat.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 08:06 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby


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?
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 09:56 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:12 AM
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.
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 10:29 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 02:12 PM
I'm a smoker and live in a city (state) that brought in total smoking bans in bars about a year ago. It's way, way better.
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 08:20 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,266
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
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!!!

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 is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 08:50 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,560
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by the iron horse
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.
randhail is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 08:59 PM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by the iron horse

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.


Quote:
Originally posted by the iron horse

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?
BVS is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 09:04 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,266
Local Time: 10:12 AM
My answer to the past two post:

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


Take care
the iron horse is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 09:09 PM   #39
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 89
Local Time: 02:12 PM
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.
watergate is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 09:19 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by the iron horse
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.
__________________

BVS 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 09:12 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
×