Gov. Bredesen assaults freedom, liberty - wants to ban smoking in public

[MG1968]

equating second hand smoke to nerve gas is alarmist hyperbole.

 

[allvol123]

Yes, allowing other people to poison the air that we all must breathe in the name of freedom of expression makes perfect sense. Using that logic we should all be allowed to spray cans of nerve gas inside public accomodations so long as the property owner allows it. :crazy:

Game. Set. Match. Smokers lose.

Hmmm, guess we better shut down all those factories then.

And smoke compared to nerve gas, someone might want to reach for reality before it slips completely out of reach.

 

[TennNC]

sort of makes you wonder how our republic survived the 1950's and 60's. Everybody, it seemed, smoked. Contestants on game shows had ashtrays, news anchors frequently had lit cigarettes, Hollywood stars prominently displayed their butts. Yet somehow, with all that second hand smoke, America came through.

Are we saying the survival of the republic depends on this issue? I think it's more like the 3,400 people who die every year from second-hand smoke, the 150,000+ children who suffer respiratory infections, and the countless others whose health is harmed by it.

Oh, and I think that whole smoking fad is catching up with us. Or, at least the 438,000 who die from smoking-related causes each year. And I'm sure we could continue along this path and still "come through."

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Hmmm, guess we better shut down all those factories then. And smoke compared to nerve gas, someone might want to reach for reality before it slips completely out of reach.

Factories can be equipped with scrubbers. Do you think the smokers are willing to wear plastic bubbles on their heads that are equipped with some sort of scrubber or filter device to prevent or significantly reduce emissions?

As for the nerve gas analogy, it is incontrovertable that second hand smoke is a carcinogen. In my opinion, any person who is so selfish that they are willing to risk giving cancer to the people they come in contact with for the sole reason of satisfying some craving, which could easily be alleviated if the person had any bit of willpower or backbone, is no better than a drunk who gets behind the wheel or someone who recklessly starts forest fires. It may not be the smoker's desire to give someone cancer but they know it is a possibility and they do not care.

 

[TennNC]

As for the nerve gas analogy, it is incontrovertable that second hand smoke is a carcinogen. In my opinion, any person who is so selfish that they are willing to risk giving cancer to the people they come in contact with for the sole reason of satisfying some craving, which could easily be alleviated if the person had any bit of willpower or backbone, is no better than a drunk who gets behind the wheel or someone who recklessly starts forest fires. It may not be the smoker's desire to give someone cancer but they know it is a possibility and they do not care.

Wow. Well put.

 

[allvol123]

Factories can be equipped with scrubbers. Do you think the smokers are willing to wear plastic bubbles on their heads that are equipped with some sort of scrubber or filter device to prevent or significantly reduce emissions?

As for the nerve gas analogy, it is incontrovertable that second hand smoke is a carcinogen. In my opinion, any person who is so selfish that they are willing to risk giving cancer to the people they come in contact with for the sole reason of satisfying some craving, which could easily be alleviated if the person had any bit of willpower or backbone, is no better than a drunk who gets behind the wheel or someone who recklessly starts forest fires. It may not be the smoker's desire to give someone cancer but they know it is a possibility and they do not care.

Yes, and these scrubbers eliminate 100% of anything harmful.

Selfish? Telling a private business owner how HIS business should be run in order to please you. Hmm, sounds selfish to me.

So how many times have you ever eaten in a restaurant with someone smoking in it? I mean have you actually dared to take this risk and made it through it to tell about it?

 

[TennNC]

So how many times have you ever eaten in a restaurant with someone smoking in it? I mean have you actually dared to take this risk and made it through it to tell about it?

Allvol, you're smarter than this. Does harm have to be immediate for it to be real?

 

[MG1968]

Are we saying the survival of the republic depends on this issue? I think it's more like the 3,400 people who die every year from second-hand smoke, the 150,000+ children who suffer respiratory infections, and the countless others whose health is harmed by it.

Oh, and I think that whole smoking fad is catching up with us. Or, at least the 438,000 who die from smoking-related causes each year. And I'm sure we could continue along this path and still "come through."

ok, smoking is bad. I've never said it isn't. but if it is truly as bad you you state that it is (without citation), why isn't tobacco banned or made illegal?

I am not a smoker even though I was raised by smokers. I think cigarettes and their smokers stink. I applaud any business owner who runs a non-smoking establishment and I will go out of my way to patronize them. But unless the government actually finds a way to ban tobacco products, that same government shouldn't be allowed to tell a private business owner that he or she can't allow smoking.

If this were truly a "public health" issue, alcohol is a more dangerous drug than nicotine, at least in the short term.

There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.

Drunk driving statistics

16885 is a lot more than 3400, not only that, but the 16885 can be proven.

the solution here, clearly, is ban smoking and alcohol. that won't happen because politicians rely too heavily on the billions in tax revenue.

 

[allvol123]

Allvol, you're smarter than this. Does harm have to be immediate for it to be real?

No it doesn't. But I am against telling private businsses how to be run for the most part. No one is forcing VHB to eat in a certain restaurant. Total BS for the government to step in and force this. And by the way, I don't smoke and hate cigarette smoke.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Fact 1: The government regulates every public accomodation to assure the public health and safety.

Fact 2: Restaurants that are open to the general public and do not operate on a "members only" basis are public accomodations.

Fact 3: Second hand smoke is a public health and safety issue.

 

[allvol123]

Fact 1: The government regulates every public accomodation to assure the public health and safety.

Fact 2: Restaurants that are open to the general public and do not operate on a "members only" basis are public accomodations.

Fact 3: Second hand smoke is a public health and safety issue.

Fact 1: Does not make it right. The government continously oversteps boundaries and has again here.

Fact 2: No one is forcing you near second hand smoke. You have the freedom to avoid this WMD.

Fact 3: The government appreciates people like you for letting them get away with broad uses of such statements like "public health and safety issue". Are you going to use early voting when you cast for Hillary?

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Sooner or later you're going to wake up to the fact that you are on the wrong side of this one. It's not about the rights of the smoker, who can get their fix in private and not put anyone else's health at risk. It's about the rights of everyone else.

 

[TennNC]

But I am against telling private businsses how to be run for the most part. No one is forcing VHB to eat in a certain restaurant. Total BS for the government to step in and force this. And by the way, I don't smoke and hate cigarette smoke.

I am against it too, except when it comes to harming others' health. I'm glad we have standards when it comes to food. I'm glad they're stepping in and reducing the effects of second-hand smoke. Like I said, if health weren't an issue, I'd agree it's total BS.

I'm a non-smoker too.

 

[allvol123]

That is impossible since I am not on the wrong side.

So your rights are above that of the private business owner? It seems we should let the market work this one out. If it is such a critical issue, businesses will voluntarily cater to people like you and some will cater to smokers. But it really is not that critical of an issue, so they don't. Can't wait till you all start the government crackdown on cholesterol, you know the public health issue.

 

[TennNC]

ok, smoking is bad. I've never said it isn't. but if it is truly as bad you you state that it is (without citation), why isn't tobacco banned or made illegal?

I am not a smoker even though I was raised by smokers. I think cigarettes and their smokers stink. I applaud any business owner who runs a non-smoking establishment and I will go out of my way to patronize them. But unless the government actually finds a way to ban tobacco products, that same government shouldn't be allowed to tell a private business owner that he or she can't allow smoking.

If this were truly a "public health" issue, alcohol is a more dangerous drug than nicotine, at least in the short term.



Drunk driving statistics

16885 is a lot more than 3400, not only that, but the 16885 can be proven.

the solution here, clearly, is ban smoking and alcohol. that won't happen because politicians rely too heavily on the billions in tax revenue.

That's why it's illegal to serve someone who is intoxicated.

And it's never been proven that the process of drinking alcohol in and of itself harms others around us. But we know smoking does.

 

[allvol123]

I am against it too, except when it comes to harming others' health. I'm glad we have standards when it comes to food. I'm glad they're stepping in and reducing the effects of second-hand smoke. Like I said, if health weren't an issue, I'd agree it's total BS.

I'm a non-smoker too.

I would be for it as well if I were phyically forced into these establishments, but I am not. I shouldn't have the right to force my views on a man that put up his money to start a business.

 

[MG1968]

then ban tobacco outright. if it's such a public health concern it should be banned and the tobacco companies run out of business.

 

[TennNC]

Can't wait till you all start the government crackdown on cholesterol, you know the public health issue.

allvol, there's a difference between harming yourself and harming others.

And again, it's not about banning smoking. It's about ensuring non-smokers aren't harmed by second-hand smoke.

 

[allvol123]

Patrons are being harmed by people offering menus with too many high cholesterol items. It just isn't fair. The government has to do something. Cholesterol tax or something. My God!!! Where are you Hillary?

 

[MG1968]

and we all can agree that it's the government's job to keep us from harming ourselves or others. it's not our responsibility at all.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Patrons are being harmed by people offering menus with too many high cholesterol items. It just isn't fair. The government has to do something. Cholesterol tax or something. My God!!! Where are you Hillary?

You get the red herring award. The last time I checked, there is not a problem with people dying from diseases caused by second hand cholesterol. There is the monkey wrench that will screw any argument you put forward along this vein. Once the smoker exhales, they have no control over who is harmed. It is releasing a poison into the atmosphere that we all share. If someone wants to pork up on fatty foods it doesn't jeopardize the health of the rest of us.

 

[allvol123]

You get the red herring award. The last time I checked, there is not a problem with people dying from diseases caused by second hand cholesterol. There is the monkey wrench that will screw any argument you put forward along this vein. Once the smoker exhales, they have no control over who is harmed. It is releasing a poison into the atmosphere that we all share. If someone wants to pork up on fatty foods it doesn't jeopardize the health of the rest of us.

So you are obviously for not allowing the sell of alcohol? Because once it is consumed, the individual doing the consuming has lost some control of his actions. He has also become somewhat of a threat to the public.

Also, these people porking up are costing the healthcare system that I am forced to pay into. So they are affecting me. So I am harmed. Monkey wrench removed, got another place for it?

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

So you are obviously for not allowing the sell of alcohol? Because once it is consumed, the individual doing the consuming has lost some control of his actions. He has also become somewhat of a threat to the public.

Yes, if the person is already at the point of legal intoxication and the person will be driving, operating machinery, going armed, etc. As stated earlier, it is already illegal to serve a drunk and anyone who does so will likely be jointly and severally liable for any damage caused under state dramshop laws. In other words, there is already a law on the books that covers the situation you posit. Next argument please?

 

[allvol123]

Yes, if the person is already at the point of legal intoxication and the person will be driving, operating machinery, going armed, etc. As stated earlier, it is already illegal to serve a drunk and anyone who does so will likely be jointly and severally liable for any damage caused under state dramshop laws. In other words, there is already a law on the books that covers the situation you posit. Next argument please?

No, not next argument. "If the person is already at the point of legal intoxication". That is a bunch of BS coming from your world. One beer is too many using your way of thinking. How do I know this person has any food on their stomach to help with his alcoholic consumption, has he already taken some prescription medicines, is there someone at the bar measuring his intoxication level? This is not being pursued with the same zeal as your smoking fetish. Not to mention the noise pollution that drunks put off.

Oh and you forgot to address the cholesterol issue. You know, not causing me harm? Although they are helping to massacre the healthcare system I pay into and thus harming me.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Also, these people porking up are costing the healthcare system that I am forced to pay into. So they are affecting me. So I am harmed. Monkey wrench removed, got another place for it?

Nope the monkey wrench is still there. Paying taxes, higher premiums, etc. is not physicaly invasive (does nto enter your body) and does not threaten harm to you. If you think the taxes are to high then vote for people who lower the taxes. If you don't find youself in the majority then deal with it or leave the country, those are the choices for all of us. If your health care premiums are too high then don't buy health insurance. If you don't have health insurance now and your medical bills are too high then don't go to the doctor.

Oh and you forgot to address the cholesterol issue. You know, not causing me harm? Although they are helping to massacre the healthcare system I pay into and thus harming me.

because you edited it into your response after I already laid the logic behind your initial post in the ashcan where it belongs.

As for the rest of your last post, we have laws that prohibit public drunkeness and noise ordianances so your fears are already addressed.

I am not hearing anything new here.