Please don't smoke...

Gingerbread Man on 12/7/2006 at 03:51

horrid cunts the lot of u

Agent Monkeysee on 12/7/2006 at 04:08

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

Remember that the next time someone blows smoke in your face who's smoking somewhere they have banned smoking.

Thats life, Turns out people still do stuff even though its illegel. LOL

That is an absurd arguement.

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

But If you want to compare something that effects other people as well, what about all the innocent people killed by drunk driving every year? I personally would rather take my chances that 2nd hand smoke might kill me in 50 or 60 years than take my chances with a drunk driver on the road any day.

Given your earlier snarky comments that we should ban inactivity I'm assuming you're against the smoking ban. Therefore based on this quote and that other supporting information your argument seems to be "the fact that smoking affects other people isn't an argument for banning it; plenty of behaviors affect other people like..." and here's where your argument goes off into crazyland "...drunk driving". Yes, drunk driving affects other people. Rather adversely at that. So we have banned it. And attached some rather severe criminal penalties to it. So... drunk driving adversely affects others and we criminalize it. Smoking also affects others and so we have criminalized it (to a lesser extent). Presumably you're trying to reach the conclusion that "therefore the mere fact that smoking affects others is not a strong enough reason to ban it" but your example to support that is the "behavior banned for adversely affecting others" par excellence. It's one of the craziest arguments I've ever seen.

Starrfall on 12/7/2006 at 04:56

Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee

YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE MAN GET AHOLD OF YOURSELF OH GOD

YOU'RE GET AHOLD OF YOURSELF

Gingerbread Man on 12/7/2006 at 04:56

lol I will get a hold of it come here

e; fuck beatan

Agent Monkeysee on 12/7/2006 at 06:17

i'll ahold of get you mister

Gingerbread Man on 12/7/2006 at 06:23

youll pay for that you ass

<small>fucking page 4 i hate u</small>

Ghostly Apparition on 12/7/2006 at 13:02

Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee

That's not an argument, it's just the way things are. I'm still trying to figure out what your argument is. Yes, people die from drunk driving. What's your point? YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE MAN GET AHOLD OF YOURSELF OH GOD

As near as I can tell this is where you brought it up...

Given your earlier snarky comments that we should ban inactivity I'm assuming you're against the smoking ban. Therefore based on this quote and that other supporting information your argument seems to be "the fact that smoking affects other people isn't an argument for banning it; plenty of behaviors affect other people like..." and here's where your argument goes off into crazyland "...drunk driving". Yes, drunk driving affects other people. Rather adversely at that. So we have banned it. And attached some rather severe criminal penalties to it. So... drunk driving adversely affects others and we criminalize it. Smoking also affects others and so we have criminalized it (to a lesser extent). Presumably you're trying to reach the conclusion that "therefore the mere fact that smoking affects others is not a strong enough reason to ban it" but your example to support that is the "behavior banned for adversely affecting others" par excellence. It's one of the craziest arguments I've ever seen.

Actually I'm not against the smoking ban in most places. Its a decent law that protects people from something that is potentially harmful.
What is truly annoying to me is the self rightousness of alot of the non-smoking zealots and some of the ridiculous laws they propose.
There has been discussion of alllowing people to sue thier neighbors for smoking in thier own yard if the smoke goes into thier next door neighbors yard. Or banning smoking on public sidewalks and the like. Wheres the common sense? Where does it end? Do we arrest offenders? Throw them in jail? Hey! What are you in jail for? Smoking a ciggerette.

Some of you, depending on where you live may not have encountered the dread (anti-smoking zealot) as most of them live in thier natural habitat in southern california. They may indeed be rare in other locales.

Hier on 12/7/2006 at 13:28

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

There has been discussion of alllowing people to sue thier neighbors for smoking in thier own yard if the smoke goes into thier next door neighbors yard. Or banning smoking on public sidewalks and the like. Wheres the common sense? Where does it end? Do we arrest offenders? Throw them in jail? Hey! What are you in jail for? Smoking a ciggerette.

I've never encountered this sort of argument, and you're right, it is ridiculous.

I hardly ever think about smokers now that the habit has been banned in public buildings here in Ontario. I love the fact that all restaurants and bars are smoke-free, but that's as far as I'd expect the laws to go. Besides, anyone can hold their breath long enough to walk past a smoker on the sidewalk.

I don't have any stats but it just seems that smokers are in the dwindling minority around here--or at least among the people I tend to interact with. It's just not fashionable at all. It's pretty funny seeing a small clump of people standing outside an office building in -30 C weather so they can have a smoke; they really do look ridiculous.

Anyway, offenders of the anti-smoking laws are fined, not arrested. And the establishment's owner is fined far more, so the bars and restaurants do a pretty good job of policing themselves.

SD on 12/7/2006 at 15:18

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

Smoking bans for bars and restaurants are idiotic. If you don't want to go to a place with smokers, (http://www.mises.org/story/2117) then don't go. Go to a restaurant where the owner decides to ban smoking.

And if you're a non-smoker and the only job you can get is in a smoking bar or restaurant, then I guess it's tough titties, right?

Bar and restaurant workers are entitled to the same health and welfare rights at work as the rest of us are. That now (quite rightly) includes the right to not get cancer, heart disease or bronchitis via passive smoking.

Strangeblue on 12/7/2006 at 15:27

O teh no! Save teh bats from secondan hand smokey insects!

(levity is required... you twats)