Frag Monger wrote:Is someone smokes next to you in a public area - you can be directly affected by being forced to breathe their second hand smoke.

If someone eats a tripple deluxe cheeseburger with fried onions, extra cheese, topped off with a fried egg, etc., etc right next to you - it has no direct effect on you or your health.

See the difference?

What if the hamburger dude forces you to eat a second hand fried onion?

What about a chick with heavy purfume? No telling what sort of evil chemicals are lurking about.

What's anchoring your feet in place next to the smoker?

Why should the government restrict the use of a legal substance? Don't bring up alchohol, tobacco dosn't impair your ability to drive or operate machinery.

Why, when government wants to raise taxes, they raise it on alchohl and tobacco, and call it a "sin-tax?" What happened to seperation of chuch and state? And if they intend to modify social behaviour by making alchohol and tobacco cost prohibitive, why do they justify said taxes by saying it's for education, "for the children?"

If education is funded by a tax on an activity you are trying to eradicate, how are you going to fund it when everyone stop the activity and no more revenue is coming in?

Why is everything the government does contradictory?

Why can't I stop asking rehtorical questions?

While I do hate it when women wear far too much perfume, there have been no studies done to show any detrimental health effects from smelling 'strong' perfume. The same cannot be said for cigarette smoke.

In some public situations, it can be difficult to distance yourself from a smoker (stilling in the stands at a ball game for example, you can't just switch seats especially if the stands are full).

Alcohol, as with food, does not directly affect those in close proximity to the user. Someone can get totally smashed while sitting next to me, but it will have no direct affect on my own health.

Smokers have to deal with the smoking laws because their chosen vice does have a direct effect on those who chose not to smoke.

I think helmet laws are ridiculous too. If I want to risk bashing my skull open if/when it hits the pavement, that's my business. If I chose to not wear a helmet, it has no direct effect on anyone else.

Out in the open air, you are in no danger from second hand smoke.

That was just one example (and where are the studies that show second hand smoke, when breathed outside rather than inside, is less harmful?)

How about in a restaurant or bar? What if I'm a server who doesn't smoke & you are a customer who does. Without smoking laws banning smoking in restaurants, I'd be forced to inhale the smoke from the customers who are smokers.

Most of the no smoking in 'public' laws have to do with bars & restaurants - and are in large part, to protect the employees of the establishments from being forced to breathe the second hand smoke of patrons.

Face it. Smoking, by it's nature, requires more restrictions than other health issues - because the smoker affects more than just himself/herself.

Frag Monger wrote:That was just one example (and where are the studies that show second hand smoke, when breathed outside rather than inside, is less harmful?)

Common sense will tell you that.

How about in a restaurant or bar? What if I'm a server who doesn't smoke & you are a customer who does. Without smoking laws banning smoking in restaurants, I'd be forced to inhale the smoke from the customers who are smokers.

You have no "right" to work anywhere. It's up to the employer to hire who they wish.

Most of the no smoking in 'public' laws have to do with bars & restaurants - and are in large part, to protect the employees of the establishments from being forced to breathe the second hand smoke of patrons.

Face it. Smoking, by it's nature, requires more restrictions than other health issues - because the smoker affects more than just himself/herself.

It's not the government's buisiness. It's a matter of the right of private buisiness to operate without government interference. If you don't like the smoke, work somewhere else.

Smoking became an issue when lawyers figured out they could make mega-bucks off of lawsuits. And people go in for feel-good legislation without considering the consequences of more and more restrictions on thier liberties. Hence, the trans-fat flap and banning fast food. The governments primary responsibility is to protect the rights of it's citizens. Restricting rights "for the public good" is destructive of the very foundations of our republic.

Well, in San Diego, there was a charismatic female minister, who was asked by an obese man one day for money for food.

To which she replied, "You don't need to eat." Oh well.

Frag Monger wrote:That was just one example (and where are the studies that show second hand smoke, when breathed outside rather than inside, is less harmful?)

Ghost Wolf wrote:Common sense will tell you that.

LOL No it won't. If second hand smoke is less harmful when inhaled outdoors rather than indoors, then why isn't smoking itself less harful when done outdoors? Why don't cigarette packs have warnings that to avoid the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, you should smoke outside? Not! Nice try.

Frag Monger wrote:How about in a restaurant or bar? What if I'm a server who doesn't smoke & you are a customer who does. Without smoking laws banning smoking in restaurants, I'd be forced to inhale the smoke from the customers who are smokers.

Ghost Wolf wrote:You have no "right" to work anywhere. It's up to the employer to hire who they wish.

I never said I have the 'right' to work anywhere. However, is it fair that non smokers should be discriminated against for certain positions, becuase they don't want to have to breathe smoke on the job? No it's not. It's not legal either.

Ghost Wolf wrote:It's not the government's buisiness. It's a matter of the right of private buisiness to operate without government interference. If you don't like the smoke, work somewhere else.

It becomes the government's busness becuase smoking can directly affect the health of non smokers. Also, businesses cannot discriminate on who they hire, based on personal habits (like smoking). If two people apply for a job, but the one who's a smoker gets hired simply becuase he's a smoker, that's discriminatory & illegal.

Ghost Wolf wrote:Smoking became an issue when lawyers figured out they could make mega-bucks off of lawsuits. And people go in for feel-good legislation without considering the consequences of more and more restrictions on thier liberties. Hence, the trans-fat flap and banning fast food. The governments primary responsibility is to protect the rights of it's citizens. Restricting rights "for the public good" is destructive of the very foundations of our republic.

Actually, smoking became an issue when studies conclusively proved that second hand smoke (i.e. the smoke non-smokers are forced to inhale from smokers in public places) is harmful. There is no issue of 'liberty' here. Smokers affect more than just themselves when they smoke - as such, there are laws in place to protect the non-smokers who don't wish to suffer the detrimental effects of cigarette smoke.

I think the trans-fat issue & the banning of fast food is ridiculous & goes too far. Why? Because what each individual person choses to eat has no direct effect on anyone in proximity to the person who choses to eat the fatty/fast food. There's no such thing as 'second hand fat'. The same cannot be said for smoking.

AlicornsPrayer wrote:I've got to say, I've never in my life seen someone who suffers so badly from 'It's-all-the-fault-of-the-liberals-and-democrats'-itis as much as you do...

Actually... I've never said "everything" is the fault of the liberals and Democrats. I only lay the portion of blame at their feet that they deserve. And, of course, there are conservatives and Republicans and Independents who are all for the "ban-smoking" madness. But, they are mostly like that because they've bought-into the P.C. madness the left started years ago. But that's no excuse for them to be that way as well.

You do realize that the non-smoking laws (which I find stupid and an invasion of my rights to smoke) were driven by NON SMOKERS...Who incidentally, happened to be from ALL political backgrounds? Conservatives, Liberals, Republican, Democrat, Moderate, Christian, Athiest, etc?

Yes, I do, and I just said as much.

So your constant trying to lay the blame on the shoulders of one particular group, simply cause you're in the 'other' group is fruitless, unrealistic, and unrational...

Again... the "P.C." crowd I mentioned does not mean that I think they're all liberals. Every group, sector, party, clan, whatever in America has a certain number of intelligent and non-intelligent people. But it so happens that the Democratic party has more of the non-intelligent, and when they continue to shout "the sky is falling" often enough, the Independents and Republicans who are borderline intelligent actually begin to believe them... much like this "Bush ruined our economy" mantra. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You want to get mad at who created the non-smoking laws? Then get mad at the right people...The NON SMOKERS. Period.

I have found that "ex-smokers" are sometimes worse than the non-smokers. It was okay for smoking to be legal when they were puffing, but suddenly, the moment they decide to quit, they think they have the right to make everyone else quite too. My brother-in-law is one of them. He stopped smoking and now is an advocate for every state to outlaw it everywhere. But... uh... he's now about 150 pounds overweight and can hardly move from eating too much too often. Amazing, huh?

Instead of laying the blame soley on the group that you don't like, you need to stop and also take a huge look in the mirror at your own choosen group. Because the blame is equal and shared between them all.

Again... we actually agree here. But this is just "one issue" in the P.C. movement. There are many "sects" to it ... from the ecology to gay rights to the speech police to the sexual harassment crowd and so many others I could name. I think liberals are most certainly the larger number of all these groups.

The "core" of all these issues is freedom. In a truly "FREE" society, we have to put up with the bad habits of others... the bad speech of others... the bad thoughts of others... even some bad actions of others... religion from some... protests against religion from others... etc... OR we can simply outlaw everyone and everything we don't agree with... but, then, there goes our freedom... one law at a time.

I believe that the only laws inhibiting our freedoms should be laws that protect others from our actions.

For (extreme) example: Murder is illegal. Should it be? In a 'truly' free society, shouldn't I be able to do anything I want including kill someone?

My answer - yes, as long as what you do doesn't adversely affect others - hence murder is illegal.

How about suicide? IMO, suicide shouldn't be illegal, because you killing yourself has no direct effect on any other person in this world.

'True' freedom is anarchy. However, I think that goes too far. I'm fine with freedom, except laws that prevent my actions from directly harming others.

Ghost Wolf wrote:Why, when government wants to raise taxes, they raise it on alchohl and tobacco, and call it a "sin-tax?" What happened to seperation of chuch and state?

You know...

That slogan is one of the most over-used (and incorrect) slogans I have ever heard.

The constitution, in fact, does not say anything about "seperation of church and state."

Most people have no idea why the words "shall not establish a religion" were placed into our constitution. It was for one reason, and one reason only. It was to prevent the USofA from "establishing ONE national religion/church" that all people would have to attend, much like in England where everyone was forced to be a member of the Church of England. No one has ever been placed in a higher tax bracket because they joined the Catholic church instead of a Baptist one. No one has ever had to serve prison time for becoming a member of a Methodist church instead of a Pentecostal one. That is the one and ONLY reason those words were placed into our constitution.

There are hundreds of religions/faiths in this nation. There are hundreds of churches in this nation. The USofA has never, and has never even tried, to "establish" (look up the definition of the word) a single religion or church in the history of this nation. ALL religious and non-religious people have always been allowed to freely worship in this nation. But now, these "seperation" people are actually trying to bring state and religion together by "outlawing" Chrisitanity. Isn't that odd???

Religion was never meant to be seperated from our nation, and, in fact, this nation was established as a Christian nation, and all one has to do is read the words of our founding fathers, and look at the "religious" holidays they recognized, and look at the way they have always "prayed" to God before most functions of our government... and still do today, even though most have been outlawed and/or are "secular" prayers to non-gods... and even look at the Supreme Court and other government offices that still have religious symbols and words on their walls.

On the other hand...

How long as the "THEORY" of evolution (*insert mad laughter here*) been taught to our children as "fact"? This is, in and of itself, a RELIGION. It may be an atheistic one, but even atheism is a "religion". Any set of beliefs groups have can be considered "religions" by the definition of the word. Any form of "dogma" is a religion. But while the "non-religious religions" can force their will upon us, the "religious religions" are being outlawed one by one.

"Hypocritical" is the word that comes to mind.

Frag Monger wrote:I believe that the only laws inhibiting our freedoms should be laws that protect others from our actions.

For (extreme) example: Murder is illegal. Should it be? In a 'truly' free society, shouldn't I be able to do anything I want including kill someone?

My answer - yes, as long as what you do doesn't adversely affect others - hence murder is illegal.

Ever heard of "abortion"?

How about suicide? IMO, suicide shouldn't be illegal, because you killing yourself has no direct effect on any other person in this world.

You've obviously never experienced first-hand the heartache and despair that suicide does to the loved ones of the person who killed themself... and/or the financial hardships it has caused people when the bread-winner of the families have done this. Suicide most certain effects many, many, many other people.

'True' freedom is anarchy. However, I think that goes too far. I'm fine with freedom, except laws that prevent my actions from directly harming others.

But smoking harms no one. The danger of second-hand smoke is a lie. There has never, in the history of science, been an "un-tainted" test-subject who had not already been exposed to camp fire smoke, auto emissions, lawn mower fumes, and so many other chemicals and perfumes and deoderants and so many other contaminants.

There is absolutely no way to prove that second-hand smoke has ever caused a single death in this world.

OneVoice wrote:

Frag Monger wrote:I believe that the only laws inhibiting our freedoms should be laws that protect others from our actions.

For (extreme) example: Murder is illegal. Should it be? In a 'truly' free society, shouldn't I be able to do anything I want including kill someone?

My answer - yes, as long as what you do doesn't adversely affect others - hence murder is illegal.

Ever heard of "abortion"?

That's a whole other can of worms. Let's not open it here. For the record, however, I am in favor of abortion in cases of rape or incest.

OneVoice wrote:

Frag Monger wrote:How about suicide? IMO, suicide shouldn't be illegal, because you killing yourself has no direct effect on any other person in this world.

You've obviously never experienced first-hand the heartache and despair that suicide does to the loved ones of the person who killed themself... and/or the financial hardships it has caused people when the bread-winner of the families have done this. Suicide most certain effects many, many, many other people.

In fact I have experienced it. While it is a hardship for the family, it does not directly affect the health/well being of another (like killing someone else does). The affect is profound, but indirect.

OneVoice wrote:

Frag Monger wrote:'True' freedom is anarchy. However, I think that goes too far. I'm fine with freedom, except laws that prevent my actions from directly harming others.

But smoking harms no one. The danger of second-hand smoke is a lie. There has never, in the history of science, been an "un-tainted" test-subject who had not already been exposed to camp fire smoke, auto emissions, lawn mower fumes, and so many other chemicals and perfumes and deoderants and so many other contaminants.

There is absolutely no way to prove that second-hand smoke has ever caused a single death in this world.

"Smoking harms no one."? REALLY? Wow. OK - you tell yourself that all you want, but it has been scientifically 'proven' that smoking kills & second hand smoke damage has been proven sufficiently to enact the laws.

Are you one of those who agreed with the cigarette companies all those years that there was 'no proven link' between smoking & health problems? It sounds like you even still believe that(?)

OneVoice wrote:There are hundreds of religions/faiths in this nation. There are hundreds of churches in this nation. The USofA has never, and has never even tried, to "establish" (look up the definition of the word) a single religion or church in the history of this nation. ALL religious and non-religious people have always been allowed to freely worship in this nation. But now, these "seperation" people are actually trying to bring state and religion together by "outlawing" Chrisitanity. Isn't that odd??? Can you post a link to that?

Religion was never meant to be seperated from our nation, and, in fact, this nation was established as a Christian nation, and all one has to do is read the words of our founding fathers, and look at the "religious" holidays they recognized, and look at the way they have always "prayed" to God before most functions of our government... and still do today, even though most have been outlawed and/or are "secular" prayers to non-gods... and even look at the Supreme Court and other government offices that still have religious symbols and words on their walls.
Is that your stance? This is a "christian" nation? Define a "non-god" please.


How long as the "THEORY" of evolution (*insert mad laughter here*) been taught to our children as "fact"? This is, in and of itself, a RELIGION. It may be an atheistic one, but even atheism is a "religion". Any set of beliefs groups have can be considered "religions" by the definition of the word. Any form of "dogma" is a religion. But while the "non-religious religions" can force their will upon us, the "religious religions" are being outlawed one by one.
Are you saying that creationism should be taught as fact?
"Hypocritical" is the word that comes to mind. .

Your post is a great example

Frag Monger wrote:That's a whole other can of worms. Let's not open it here. For the record, however, I am in favor of abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Rape, incest or a casual fling... explain why an innocent child gets the "death sentence" in any of the cases?

In fact I have experienced it. While it is a hardship for the family, it does not directly affect the health/well being of another (like killing someone else does). The affect is profound, but indirect.

I must disagree. The effect is very direct when the father kills himself and the mother has to get a second job to pay for a smaller home because they were evicted from their home when the bills could no longer be paid... and the children dig ditches or work at a burger joint for the rest of their lives because the college fund dried up.

I don't believe those are "indirect" results. They are the direct results of that father ending his life.

"Smoking harms no one."? REALLY? Wow. OK - you tell yourself that all you want, but it has been scientifically 'proven' that smoking kills & second hand smoke damage has been proven sufficiently to enact the laws.

Are you one of those who agreed with the cigarette companies all those years that there was 'no proven link' between smoking & health problems? It sounds like you even still believe that(?)

Wait... hold it... stop the bus... you changed the subject.

I never said "direct smoking" has never caused any health problems. But there is no proof that smoking causes "cancer". In fact, I have a report saved somewhere on my computer from a medical doctor who, in fact, argues that smoking does NOT cause cancer. But, yes, smoking five packs a day can obviously cause you shortness of breath, and a number of other things. But smelling the odor of someone smoking a single cigarette in a restaurant thirty feet away has never caused anyone to develope cancer. That tiny amount of "whatever" would be self-cleaned by your lungs within a matter of minutes.

Do you not realize that certain people smoke for 90 years and never develope lung cancer, and others never smoke a cigarette in their lives and die of lung cancer at 30 years old? Some of us have certain little "time bombs" inside of us that go off when ready, and others of us do not have them, but we may have little "time bombs" of other types of illness that will.

I knew a man once who died of cancer at 43 years of age, and never smoked, and worked an office job, and was in otherwise great shape. The doctor found no "recognized reason" why that man developed lung cancer, other than that he simply had it inside of him all along, and it was simply his time to go.

Life is like that.

OneVoice wrote:Rape, incest or a casual fling... explain why an innocent child gets the "death sentence" in any of the cases?

Again, let's not turn this into an abortion debate - that's a whole other subject seperate from this thread. To answer you though:

-Rape: The pregnancy was forced on the woman by a criminal. She shoudl have the right to terminate such a pregnancy, IMO.

-Incest: The chances are high for DNA problems w/ the child which could lead to retardation, deformation, and a host of diseases. Abort, IMO.

OneVoice wrote:I must disagree. The effect is very direct when the father kills himself and the mother has to get a second job to pay for a smaller home because they were evicted from their home when the bills could no longer be paid... and the children dig ditches or work at a burger joint for the rest of their lives because the college fund dried up.

YOu're really talking apples & oranges here. The issue at hand in this thread is health issues - which is why we're debating smoking laws vs. this ridiculous no serving certain foods to obese people law. There is no direct HEALTH effects to someone else, when someone commits suicide.

Frag Monger wrote:"Smoking harms no one."? REALLY? Wow. OK - you tell yourself that all you want, but it has been scientifically 'proven' that smoking kills & second hand smoke damage has been proven sufficiently to enact the laws.

Are you one of those who agreed with the cigarette companies all those years that there was 'no proven link' between smoking & health problems? It sounds like you even still believe that(?)

OneVoice wrote:Wait... hold it... stop the bus... you changed the subject.

I did no such thing. I DIRECTLY quoted you. YOu said: "Smoking harms no one." I did not edit or alter that quote in any way.

OneVoice wrote:I never said "direct smoking" has never caused any health problems. But there is no proof that smoking causes "cancer".

As I said, you just keep telling yourself that. It's quite clear & obvious to about 99% of the population that smoking does cause cancer and other health issues (or at the very, very least, severely increases such risk to those who have genetic factors that would lead to it).

The 'proof' is sufficient for laws to be enacted. If there really was no link whatsoever between smoking & cancer/other health issues, then why aren't smokers suing the government for passing laws with no evidence?

P.S. There are people out there who can live to 90 eating nothing but junk food too - does that mean it's not bad for you?