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

#101
#101
Who cares if we have laws that prohibit public drunkeness? That does not solve your quandry, one drink and the person is altered, thus causing a potential harm as realistic as your second hand smoke. Drunk has nothing to do with it, drinking at all alters the individual and thus infringes on my safety. So your reasoning states drinking should be banned.

Your reasoning should get you a job writing policy for the Hillarites. Take those freedoms away one at a time.
 
#102
#102
VolunteerHillbilly said:
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.


.
Click to expand...

These force me into bad health choices and thus by your reasoning I have been harmed by the porkies. Freedom is not something you are really into is it?
 
#103
#103
wbarron said:
And again, it's not about banning smoking. It's about ensuring non-smokers aren't harmed by second-hand smoke.
Click to expand...


Not to sound like a Jerk, but Boo-F'ing-Hoo. If one feels the need to be protected from second hand smoke, then stay the heck out of bars that choose to allow smoking. If you don't like it, find a new bar. Simple as that.
 
#104
#104
Because once smoking is banned in bars, next it will be the idiot soccer mom coming up with "there was a man in his pickup next to my SUV at a light and he was smoking and some of the second hand smoke wafted through the window onto my kids"

You may scoff at this example, but once people get away with one hissy, they throw another one. There isn't a stopping point once a hissy succeeds, they just make another more detailed one.

Look at MADD. The huff and puff about lowering the DWI limits. In Connecticut, the limit is now .08. For me, a 6'1, 215 pound male, i can have 2 beers before i am legally drunk. Am i drunk? NO. Am i close to drunk? NO. Am i Impaired? NO. The guy who has 2 beers after work isn't the guy who crashes into the minivan full of kids at 3AM, but MADD got the limit lowered from .12 to .10 to .08, resulting in more convictions, but not doing anything to solve the problem of the guy who has been at the bar for 11 hours driving home. Now we can arrest the guy who has 6 beers in 4 hours at the golf course, or the guy who shares a pitcher after work. Sorry to rant, it's a personal issue with me.
 
#105
#105
.08 is the legal limit in nearly all, if not all of the states, not just Connecticut. It's been this way in IL for a long time, I believe.
 
#106
#106
Don't forget about stress. Many doctors would claim stress to be more harmful than second hand smoke. So as soon as somone in a public establishment produces activity I find stressfull, well let's just say this is going need to be dealt with by the government.
 
#107
#107
allvol123 said:
Don't forget about stress. Many doctors would claim stress to be more harmful than second hand smoke. So as soon as somone in a public establishment produces activity I find stressfull, well let's just say this is going need to be dealt with by the government.
Click to expand...
I find your posts to be stressful
 
#109
#109
allvol123 said:
Who cares if we have laws that prohibit public drunkeness? That does not solve your quandry, one drink and the person is altered, thus causing a potential harm as realistic as your second hand smoke. Drunk has nothing to do with it, drinking at all alters the individual and thus infringes on my safety. So your reasoning states drinking should be banned.

Your reasoning should get you a job writing policy for the Hillarites. Take those freedoms away one at a time.
Click to expand...

There's no potential harm in second-hand smoke. There's guaranteed harm. The level of harm varies depending on the person and how much they inhale.

There's potential harm in drinking and driving, and studies have shown that a .08 level significantly increseas the risk of causing harm. I trust that this is a smart number.
 
#110
#110
JTrainDavis said:
Because once smoking is banned in bars, next it will be the idiot soccer mom coming up with "there was a man in his pickup next to my SUV at a light and he was smoking and some of the second hand smoke wafted through the window onto my kids"

You may scoff at this example, but once people get away with one hissy, they throw another one. There isn't a stopping point once a hissy succeeds, they just make another more detailed one.

Look at MADD. The huff and puff about lowering the DWI limits. In Connecticut, the limit is now .08. For me, a 6'1, 215 pound male, i can have 2 beers before i am legally drunk. Am i drunk? NO. Am i close to drunk? NO. Am i Impaired? NO. The guy who has 2 beers after work isn't the guy who crashes into the minivan full of kids at 3AM, but MADD got the limit lowered from .12 to .10 to .08, resulting in more convictions, but not doing anything to solve the problem of the guy who has been at the bar for 11 hours driving home. Now we can arrest the guy who has 6 beers in 4 hours at the golf course, or the guy who shares a pitcher after work. Sorry to rant, it's a personal issue with me.
Click to expand...

I can tell you're frustrated.

And if you want to change this number b/c you think that it's more important to allow people to drink more and still drive, then go do it. MADD got it done - there's no reason you can't. And obviously they felt strongly enough about the issue that they fought pretty hard to do it.

Is that not freedom?
 
#111
#111
wbarron said:
There's no potential harm in second-hand smoke. There's guaranteed harm.
.
Click to expand...

There is no gauranteed harm to any more of an extent that there is gauranteed harm from sunlight. In fact there is probably less. Everyone I know has been exposed to the Sun and second hand smoke. I have known people who have gotten skin cancer, I know no one that has lung cancer that is a non smoker.
 
#112
#112
allvol123 said:
There is no gauranteed harm to any more of an extent that there is gauranteed harm from sunlight. In fact there is probably less. Everyone I know has been exposed to the Sun and second hand smoke. I have known people who have gotten skin cancer, I know no one that has lung cancer that is a non smoker.
Click to expand...

I've never personally known anyone who's died of a drug overdose or been murdered or committed robbery or rape. So I guess those things don't exist.

Again, I'll point you to the American Lung Association for facts on second-hand smoke.

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site

Where are you getting your facts?
 
#113
#113
wbarron said:
I've never personally known anyone who's died of a drug overdose or been murdered or committed robbery or rape. So I guess those things don't exist.

Again, I'll point you to the American Lung Association for facts on second-hand smoke.

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site

Where are you getting your facts?
Click to expand...

I see those things on TV all the time, so it is fairly easy to see they exist. Yes, the ALA I am sure would never have an interest in sounding alarming on an issue like second hand smoke.

I get my facts from me and they are 100% true. I have never known a person that got lung cancer from second hand smoke. Have you? And this is getting off base anyway, because even if you did it in no way makes it correct for the government to step in and tell a business owner how to run his business.
 
#114
#114
wbarron said:
I've never personally known anyone who's died of a drug overdose or been murdered or committed robbery or rape. So I guess those things don't exist.

Again, I'll point you to the American Lung Association for facts on second-hand smoke.

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site

Where are you getting your facts?
Click to expand...


Also, are you interested in the government regulating the amount of sunlight you are allowed to have?
 
#115
#115
allvol123 said:
I get my facts from me and they are 100% true. I have never known a person that got lung cancer from second hand smoke. Have you? And this is getting off base anyway, because even if you did it in no way makes it correct for the government to step in and tell a business owner how to run his business.
Click to expand...

Can I start quoting you in business presentations I put together? Source: AllVol123, 100% true.

Two questions:

1) Do you believe that second-hand smoke is harmful? If your answer is no, then I don't know what to say. If it's yes, then I ask:

2) Do you think it's okay for a privately-owned restaurant to serve contaminated meat? Surely you must. B/c, by your reasoning, the government shouldn't meddle, but should let the business owner run his/her business how they want. if you don't like contaminated meat, don't eat there, right? And if some people find out later that it's bad for them, it's their fault, right?
 
#116
#116
allvol123 said:
Also, are you interested in the government regulating the amount of sunlight you are allowed to have?
Click to expand...

Again, we're not talking about inflicting harm to yourself - we're talking about harming others. And I'm glad the government has conducted studies that better inform us about the effects of TOO MUCH sunlight. I like to be informed.
 
#117
#117
wbarron said:
Can I start quoting you in business presentations I put together? Source: AllVol123, 100% true.

Two questions:

1) Do you believe that second-hand smoke is harmful? If your answer is no, then I don't know what to say. If it's yes, then I ask:

2) Do you think it's okay for a privately-owned restaurant to serve contaminated meat? Surely you must. B/c, by your reasoning, the government shouldn't meddle, but should let the business owner run his/her business how they want. if you don't like contaminated meat, don't eat there, right? And if some people find out later that it's bad for them, it's their fault, right?
Click to expand...

So you are into being a smarta$$ now? Please point out where I have said something is fact and it isn't. All I have said is I do not know anyone who has lung cancer due to second hand smoke, you got proof saying I do?

1) It is about as harmful as too much sunlight, exhaust from cars, and stress. In other words it is irrelevant considering how much time people spend during a meal eating out or in any public establishment.

2) You are right, my answer is Yes. The restaurant will go out of business and also be sued for harming someone. Thus, other people with one iota of common sense that own a restaraunt will see this and make it a priority to not do such a dumb thing. Or we can use the current method of the govt/health inspectors because this keeps things safe. Cough, cough, Jack In The Box/Pet Food recall and so many other small town restaraunts that people have gotten sick at.
 
#118
#118
wbarron said:
Again, we're not talking about inflicting harm to yourself - we're talking about harming others. And I'm glad the government has conducted studies that better inform us about the effects of TOO MUCH sunlight. I like to be informed.
Click to expand...

What about places that don't have tinted windows or let you eat outside, that is them harming you.

Have you eaten at a restaurant where people were smoking? I mean did you actually make this daredevil decision to stay there even after noticing this unbelievable act?
 
#119
#119
allvol123 said:
So you are into being a smarta$$ now? Please point out where I have said something is fact and it isn't. All I have said is I do not know anyone who has lung cancer due to second hand smoke, you got proof saying I do?
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. I was being a smarta$$, b/c nobody uses themselves as a source to make a generalization about a topic like this. B/c it hasn't happened to you is irrelevant. That's your experience, not the facts about second-hand smoke. Again, since I don't know anyone who's raped anyone else, does that mean it doesn't happen? And if you don't trust the ALA, who reports that 3,400 people in the US die every year and at least a couple hundred thousand get serious ailments (such as respiratory infections) from second-hand smoke, then I guess you have some serious conspiracy issues and probably won't trust any source but yourself.
 
#120
#120
wbarron said:
Yes, you're right. I was being a smarta$$, b/c nobody uses themselves as a source to make a generalization about a topic like this. B/c it hasn't happened to you is irrelevant. That's your experience, not the facts about second-hand smoke. Again, since I don't know anyone who's raped anyone else, does that mean it doesn't happen? And if you don't trust the ALA, who reports that 3,400 people in the US die every year and at least a couple hundred thousand get serious ailments (such as respiratory infections) from second-hand smoke, then I guess you have some serious conspiracy issues and probably won't trust any source but yourself.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it hasn't happened to me is the end all be all? I said it hasn't happened to the hundreds or even thousands of people that I have known throught my life during the time I knew any of these people. Please stand up if you have lung cancer due to second hand smoke. And more importantly make sure your government mandates how people run their businesses over such an issue that affects such a small amount of people and in reality can't be proven.
 
#121
#121
allvol123 said:
Where did I say it hasn't happened to me is the end all be all? I said it hasn't happened to the hundreds or even thousands of people that I have known throught my life during the time I knew any of these people. Please stand up if you have lung cancer due to second hand smoke. And more importantly make sure your government mandates how people run their businesses over such an issue that affects such a small amount of people and in reality can't be proven.
Click to expand...

Okay, I think we've reached the end of the road on this one.

But I enjoyed it. I really did.
 
#123
#123
I still say the government should ban tobacco and I'm not sure why the folks in favor of government enforced smoking bans aren't in favor of an over all tobacco ban.

As I said before, I was raised by smokers, so a smoking ban at the local Pizza Hut wouldn't have mattered a hill of beans if my home was filled with second hand smoke. Unlike the patrons of a bar or restaurant, I didn't have the luxury of choosing my parents or where I lived. So who speaks for all the children being abused by their parents via second hand smoke?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top