So anyone voting for the yes no yes?
-
torbs;221699 wrote:
Why can't places like that have smoking and one not?...Simple, because people like you (not you, like you) voted against smoking in establishments like that previously. Either that, or it's the business owners' decision. Either way, your arguement is based on pointing to something that (IMO) is wrong (banning smoking in establishments) and using it as an excuse to ban it elseware. That's called using one small negative and bringing it to a larger one. It just builds up and up until it's banned all-together (in this case).Chuck, for how smart you come off to be a lot of the time, I admit, you sound very uneducated, selfish, and anti-free market right now...Re-read what you wrote and think of what Ron Paul would say, or anybody that has a general understanding of how piling small laws on top of each other works...With this, you just took a step down (polically, i still
you in a totally non-gay way lol) to me. I guess I just don't see how you can be somebody that supports a candidate who stands for all of the things you are now seemingly against, all because it works in your favor. Hypocrit.This is the one major issue I am against of RP's. Because in MY understanding of the american laws, one persons rights end when another persons gets infringed on. I don't think there is a "right" to smoke (didn't see it in the constitution anywhere or bill of rights), but I think there is more of a right to not have your health compromised by the choices of others.
If I walked into a bar with the following chemicals:
Acetaldehyde Acetamide Acrylamide Acrylonitrile 2-Amino-3,4-dimethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (MeIQ) 3-Amino-1,4-dimethyl-5H-pyrido [4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-1) 2-Amino-l-methyl-6-phenyl-1H-imidazo [4,5-b]pyridine (PhlP) 2-Amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole (Glu-P-1) 3-Amino-l-methyl-5H-pyrido {4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-2 2-Amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (MeAaC) 2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (AaC) 4-Aminobiphenyl 2-Aminodipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole (Glu-P-2) 0-Anisidine Arsenic Benz[a]anthracene Benzene Benzo[a]pyrene Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[j]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[b]furan Beryllium 1,3-Butadiene Cadmium Catechol (1,2-benzenediol) p-Chloroaniline Chloroform Cobalt p,p'-DDT Dibenz[a,h]acridine Dibenz[a,j]acridine Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene 3,4-Dihydroxycinnamic acid (caffeic acid) Ethylbenzene Ethylene oxide Formaldehyde Furan Glycidol Heptachlor Hydrazine Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene IQ 92-Amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline) Isoprene Lead 5-Methyl-chrysene 2-Naphthylamine Nitrobenzene Nitrogen mustard Nitromethane 2-Nitropropane N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine (NDBA) N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (NDPA) N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA) N-Nitrosodiethylamine (DEN) N-Nitrosodimethylamine (DMN) N-Nitrosoethylmethylamine (NEMA, MEN) 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone (NNK) N'-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN) N-Nitrosopiperidine (NPIP, NPP) N-Nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR, NPY) Polonium-210 (Radon 222) Propylene oxide Safrole Styrene Tetrachloroethylene o-Toluidine (2-methylaniline) Trichloroethylene Urethane (carbamic acid, ethyl ester) Vinyl acetate Vinyl chloride 4-Vinylcyclohexene 2,6-Xylidine (2,6-dimethylaniline)
and spilled them onto the floor, I'd be arrested for endangering the lives of the people around me...but every chemical in there is a KNOWN carcinogen found in cigarettes.
-
tjamz;221707 wrote:
[snip]...but every chemical in there is a KNOWN carcinogen found in cigarettes.A lot of those chemicals are found in foods as well. At least, acrylamide is. Oh no, the humanity! (I actually agree with you, and am a non/neverwill-smoker.)
-
DaveH;221705 wrote:
Too late, bars are already regulated as to whether they can serve food or liquor or not, who they can serve it to, etc. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't have those regulations either. Should the kitchen in a bar/grill have to meet the government regulations on cleanliness, etc? After all, isn't it the bar owners right to serve food with salmonella if he chooses? (yes, a little devils advocate there).Actually, I prefer my food with e. coli. It tastes better.
-
Governemnt: "Don't smoke here/there/almost everywhere but for god's sake don't stop buying cigarettes, we make too much money off of them."
On another note I find it interesting that some of the most harmful drugs for your health are those that are perfectly legal.
-
3_Series;221711 wrote:
On another note I find it interesting that some of the most harmful drugs for your health are those that are perfectly legal.I agree.....I can think of a lot of more fun, less harmful to your system drugs than tobacco...err...umm...so I hear.
-
Parker;221714 wrote:
i think we should ban drinking... but hey why stop there... i say we ban darts in bars...Could you juxtapose the societal costs of alcohol consumption and smoking for me? I think that everyone's right to clean lungs/air overrides a person's right to smoke. There are designated smoking areas outside of almost all buildings now. If you want to smoke, just step outside. It's that simple.
-
tjamz;221720 wrote:
I agree.....I can think of a lot of more fun, less harmful to your system drugs than tobacco...err...umm...so I hear.Examples plz.
-
tjamz;221707 wrote:
This is the one major issue I am against of RP's. Because in MY understanding of the american laws, one persons rights end when another persons gets infringed on. .Seriously?...It's my right to go into a bar that allows smoking or not. It's my right to go out and smoke if I so chose. Placing a ban in a bar infringes on my 'rights' to smoke in a private establishment that I already know has risks aside from smoke....Ok, we need to ban cars because they effect everybody's air. We also need to kill all livestock because they create more greenhouse gases than all human transportation combined (See the UN's document 'Livestock's hidden Shadow). Let's be realistic here, if that was everybody's attitude, we wouldn't ever get anywhere because in all reality, there's no one compromise everybody will be happy with. Therefore, your arguement has no merit.
You still sound like a selfish/immature prick who wants the world to himself, and wants everybody to abide by what you think is right. You are only thinking of people like yourself. You are trying to say that because you believe 'such and such' that that is the best way out there. The best view out there is every individual's. You're trying to spin everything so it works in your favor, and the easily pursuaded may believe you, however, anybody that understands what true capitalism is and how the markets should work, will take what you have to say as a misunderstanding along with your general lack of knowledge of how the system is designed to work...(To reiderate) You're trying to manipulate the system to work for you, not as it was designed for which is to protect rights. I don't care if there's one person in Fargo that smokes. As long as bar owners keep smoking in their bars then that should be their own personal choice. Just as it's your choice to go to a bar or not...
And Mazdagirl...you sound even more selfish because you think that all because you want to drink/go to a party that you have a right to not have smoke around you. What if I like smoking and dislike drinking? Should we ban drinking because drunk people can get violent and hurt others?
Both of you are entitled to your opinions, even though they are totally skewed...
P.S. Woulda written more but I got class
(to be continued...everybody go buy stock in popcorn!) -
Pretty good post.
+2 for differentiating between you're and your
-1 for "minipulate" and "scewed"
Total = +1 = win. -
BTW, this may help ppl : http://service.govdelivery.com/docs/NDCASS/NDCASS_4/NDCASS_4_20080124_en.pdf Polls open until 8pm
-
Hahaha
-
torbs;221724 wrote:
<u>Seriously</u>?...It's my right to go into a bar that allows smoking or not. It's my right to go out and smoke if I so chose. Placing a ban in a bar infringes on my 'rights' to smoke in a private establishment that I already know has risks aside from smoke....Ok, <u>we need to ban cars because they effect everybody's air</u>. We also need to kill all livestock because they create more greenhouse gases than all human transportation combined (See the UN's document 'Livestock's hidden Shadow). Let's be realistic here, if that was everybody's attitude, we wouldn't ever get anywhere because in all reality, there's no one compromise everybody will be happy with. Therefore, your arguement has no merit.Yes seriously.
We already have emissions standards on cars and fines for failing to comply with them.
I agree...kill all livestock and make them into tasty steaks....just to piss the tree hugging peta people off. I'm not 100% behind global warming. Do I think that humans have an affect on it? Sure...but is it measurable even?
You still sound like a selfish/immature prick who wants the world to himself, and wants everybody to abide by what you think is right.
You pretty much nailed that one Torbs.
You are only thinking of people like yourself. You are trying to say that because you believe 'such and such' that that is the best way out there. The best view out there is every individual's. You're trying to spin everything so it works in your favor, and the easily pursuaded may believe you, however, anybody that understands what true capitalism is and how the markets should work, will take what you have to say as a misunderstanding along with your general lack of knowledge of how the system is designed to work...(To reiderate) You're trying to manipulate the system to work for you, not as it was designed for which is to protect rights. I don't care if there's one person in Fargo that smokes. As long as bar owners keep smoking in their bars then that should be their own personal choice. Just as it's your choice to go to a bar or not...
So, by your methodology, anarchy is the absolute best form of government? Let everyone do what they feel is right. Establish no laws for the overall good of all? Establish no laws for the protection of others health? So tell me, should OSHA be eliminated? I mean, all they do is force businesses to provide a margin of safety for their workers...fucking jerks! How about building codes/fire codes? Might as well get rid of them too....I mean, who cares how packed the concert is that you attend...if a fire breaks out and you die, it was your own damn fault for going into such a packed/crowded environment! Or maybe apartment buildings shouldn't be required to have commercial fire alarm systems and/or sprinkler systems (once they reach a certain size) as no one is FORCING anyone to live in those apartments. If you honestly think that getting rid of these regulations is good for the public interest than you are far less intelligent than I've given you credit for.
BTW, I think if the smoking ban encourages one person to quit smoking, it is a success.
And Mazdagirl...you sound even more selfish because you think that all because you want to drink/go to a party that you have a right to not have smoke around you. What if I like smoking and dislike drinking? Should we ban drinking because drunk people can get violent and hurt others?
We have laws against public drunkenness already.
Both of you are entitled to your opinions, even though they are totally skewed...
matter of opinion of course...
P.S. Woulda written more but I got class
(to be continued...everybody go buy stock in popcorn!)Will do, looks like you've already started drinking the Kool-Aid
-
Ouch. A stinging, well-written retort.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login