|
Toughest smoking ban yet passed in US (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
And to Jake Benson, you are making an arguement out of the fact that you are allergic to second-hand smoke and that it inconviences you.
|
Well yeah, on top of the whole argument that smoking leads to some diseases and irritance to non-smokers. How many non-smokers walk into a smoking bar and not walk out smelling like smoke and coughing a little? And didn't most people who made a counter argument in this thread use the SAME excuse that it inconveniences them to go outside and smoke? Why are you singling out my side of the argument?
| quote: | | These two arguements tie into each other since it seems your allergy is only mild. Banning smoking or relagating it to only certian areas is, to use the semantics of the day, discriminating based on lifestyle choice. One person has "chosen" to smoke while you have not and by making it harder and more expensive to smoke you are forcing your "choice lifestyle" onto the other person. Telling a person that the have to practice their "habit" away from nonsmokers is the same as telling a black person they can't use the "white" drinking fountian. The inate difference in my comparison is that being black is not detrimental to a nearby white persons health, while smoking near a nonsmoker is. |
Ok, there's a little more than "not being detrimental to a nearby yadda-yadda..." Here's why your comparison should NOT have been made in the first place:
-Black people are black due to genetic code in their DNA. It is strictly a external physiological characteristic
-Smokers choose to smoke at some point in their life and, despite knowing well why not to do it, they start for a variety of social reasons, later becomming addicted
-The color of your skin has not the slightest correlation with any irritance or diseases
-Smoking is correlated with multiple diseases in smokers and correlated with irritance of non-smokers and (less strongly) correlated with diseases in non-smokers
-Overall, being black is not a life-style, it's a life-FORM.
-Overall, being a smoker is an OBNOXIOUS life-style and while you have the right to abuse your body, you do not have the same right to abuse other peoples' with that smoke for the same reason you do not have the right to annoy anyone with any other unwanted physiological stimulus (i.e. noise, bright lights, noxious odor, etc)
If I were black, I would be offended that you are defending a drug addiction with biological characteristic of my people. :eek:
| quote: |
Thus a ban on public, enclosed places is understandable to a degree. Banning smoking in a generic resturaunt is fine as long as it is legal to open a "smoking" resturaunt. |
Agreed, to an extent.
| quote: |
It has become trendy to oppose smoking. This is fine, however legislating against it, i.e. raising taxes on cigarettes and banning/regulating it for the sole purpose of "opposing it" or "trying to cut down on smokers" is just the government sticking its nose in my private life and restricting my freedoms. |
Well, this is a grey area here. In many places THE PEOPLE voted to ban/regulate it. So you can't really blame the gov't for the majority for wanting you to put your cigarette out. As for raising taxes (which is not covered in my argument, nor anyone elses thus far), I would be for it as long as it helps get smokers to quit or benefit them somehow. If they're being taxed just because the gov't thinks they shouldn't smoke, then it'll be harder to argue the case (and I'm not going to try -- you win there).
| quote: |
If I were to find others being gay an inconvience to me and decided to pass laws that forced open acts of homosexuality to be restricted to only certian areas, how would you feel Jake Benson? |
Hmmm, let's see here....
When I open-mouth kiss another man in public, do you get a sore throat and start coughing?
no.
When I go out to a gay bar, do you develop lung cancer?
no.
When I hit on you because you are another male and I find you attractive, do your clothes smell like smoke and you have to go home and wash them and then take a thorough shower just because of our interaction?
no.
Yeah, what a great comparison, because we all know that the act of being openly gay has a total correlation with an unwanted physiological stimulus and an array of diseases in nearby non-homosexuals. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
| quote: |
How do you think smokers feel? And, other than health, what is the difference? |
The main flaw in your point is that while my argument against smoking is affiliated with an unwanted PHYSIOLOGICAL stimulus, your devil's advocate comparison of being gay or black is affiliated with an unwanted SOCIAL stimulus.
Try again NebulousQ, this time without bringing blacks and gays into the argument. :haha: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
my state has just introduced new laws. no smoking in any publicly frequented establishment. as a smoker or not (hehe, im kinda both at the moment) i really dont have a problem with it at all. first and foremost becoz i think its unfair to expect people to work in a smoke-filled environment. yes, you can argue theres an amount of choice in that, however when it becomes a choice between feeding ones family & damaging ones health, thats not much of a choice really is it?
but outside, where you have ultimate ventilation, you should be able to smoke. i really doubt theres a great deal of problems caused by second hand smoke inhaled outside. especially since it could never be policed anyway. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but outside, where you have ultimate ventilation, you should be able to smoke. i really doubt theres a great deal of problems caused by second hand smoke inhaled outside. especially since it could never be policed anyway. |
It's a really grey area. On one side, you have suburbs where there's plenty of space to avoid smokers if you don't smoke. But on the other side, where buildings are crammed together and the streets are crowded like in New York City or on Bourbon Street in New Orleans (and I'm guessing even more places in Europe?), you'll be getting quite a few breaths of second-hand smoke whether or not you like it.
As for policing smokers outside, it's not crime in any sense and I think it's only enforced when a non-smoker complains. For example, Washington state has a smoking ban including a 25 foot rule (can't smoke within 25 feet of any public building). That sounds harsh, but it's rarely enforced. My ex (who is a cop) told me that the police made a point that this ban is the least of their worries. So it's not like police are looking for smokers and putting them in cuffs. The ban is probably reinforced under extreme circumstances like when someone complains (i.e. my mom..."I'm not walking out of Red Robin until you clear the smokers out of the doorway"). |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
BLAH BLAH BLAH... Long Quote above |
Would you like everything that's adverse to your health banned? If not, who cares if smoking causes problems? Is it really causing you any more adverse effects than other things in the evironment?
You know, not that I agree with it, but to point back in the direction of sexuality, a lot of people are psychologically traumatized because of the concept of gays. Are the psychological effects (stress, discomfort, physical disgust) that someone with a strong disdain for gays has any worse than the effects of your secondhand inhalation of outdoor smoke? I guarantee if you took some people from a strict Christian background in the Midwest that's strongly opposed to gays (think Pat Robertson, who, I don't like, but I'm playing the advocate, so I'm using him as an example), the physical trauma of watching you make out with some guy in public everyday (like you'd see in LA or NYC) could be worse long term than inhaling outdoor second-hand smoke.
I'm not even going to comment on the "Black" comments made because when I first read them, I knew there was going to be backlash because it's not a fair analogy. Although, FYI, your comment about being black not making you more prone to disease is incorrect. Off the top of my head, I know that blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia.
Even with the number of anti-smokers out there, I don't think your figures reagarding people in favor of smoking bans are accurate if you think that they apply to outdoor smoking. I know there's a lot out there who would ban smoking, period. There's even more out there who think that you and your boyfriend shouldn't be allowed to be married. Does that make them right?
I don't have a problem with going outside a building in NYC to smoke. Is it less than comfortable? Yes. Is it a good compromise between the rights of smokers and non-smokers? Yes. Is this new idea in Cali of no smoking in public areas a compromise in any fashion? No, it's facism on a choice that people make. We already have enough drugs banned in this country. Give people the opportunity to relax after having to deal with the BS of everyday life. For some people, that means having a smoke.
Also, if you want to ban smoking for health reasons, can we please ban everything else that's detrimental to the health of society? Like fast food, or SUVs, or hell, even stupidity.
Lastly, just to make it clear, I don't have a problem with gays or many of the other groups I advocated banning (well, except the stupid people, they cause problems because of this democracy concept). I was just trying to play devil's advocate to point out the problems that people could find with your opinions. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Lastly, just to make it clear, I don't have a problem with gays or many of the other groups I advocated banning (well, except the stupid people, they cause problems because of this democracy concept). I was just trying to play devil's advocate to point out the problems that people could find with your opinions. |
Wait, are you both "Groundhog Boy" and "NebulousQ"? Because he was the one that just played devil's advocate. And no, I know you don't have a problem with gays, you were just spinning it to try to get me to see the subject from the smoker's perspective. It still didn't work as I have already explained in your so eloquantly put "blah blah blah" quote (or better known as the actually post I made). |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Wait, are you both "Groundhog Boy" and "NebulousQ"? Because he was the one that just played devil's advocate. And no, I know you don't have a problem with gays, you were just spinning it to try to get me to see the subject from the smoker's perspective. It still didn't work as I have already explained in your so eloquantly put "blah blah blah" quote (or better known as the actually post I made). |
No, I think if you look around the boards enough, you'll see that I post too much to be two people.
I thought I posted some clarifications on the same opinion (or my own modifications) as well as reinforcing, I guess I was wrong.
Sorry I had a similar opinion, I know that's unheard of in here. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Would you like everything that's adverse to your health banned? If not, who cares if smoking causes problems? Is it really causing you any more adverse effects than other things in the evironment? |
When you are doing something that makes me sick, ill, or irritated STRICLY on a physical level, then I think that I should have some right to tell you to take your habit somewhere else.
| quote: | You know, not that I agree with it, but to point back in the direction of sexuality, a lot of people are psychologically traumatized because of the concept of gays. Are the psychological effects (stress, discomfort, physical disgust) that someone with a strong disdain for gays has any worse than the effects of your secondhand inhalation of outdoor smoke? I guarantee if you took some people from a strict Christian background in the Midwest that's strongly opposed to gays (think Pat Robertson, who, I don't like, but I'm playing the advocate, so I'm using him as an example), the physical trauma of watching you make out with some guy in public everyday (like you'd see in LA or NYC) could be worse long term than inhaling outdoor second-hand smoke.
|
That's a thoughtful devil's advocate argument, but here's where it doesn't work. (Quoting the answer from an earlier post first)
| quote: | | Originally quoted by Jake Bensonwhile my argument against smoking is affiliated with an unwanted PHYSIOLOGICAL stimulus, your devil's advocate comparison of being gay or black is affiliated with an unwanted SOCIAL stimulus |
There's your answer. Now for the details:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true that people ARE psychologically traumatized from the concept of gays. In fact, I'm siding with you, and I know that a lot of people suffer from stress and a lot of other problems because they don't like gay people but have to be exposed to them. These people can also suffer physical trauma from being around gay people too. However, there's a BIG difference:
Any physical disease caused by someone psychologically traumatized by gay people is caused directly from their psychological stress (mind-body interaction), but not the gay person. Here's the breakdown in psychological terms:
Gay person = S
Interpretation of the gay person = O
Physical response = R
This is an S - O - R model, meaning that your physical response is not a direct response to a gay person, but a direct response to your reaction of that gay person. Taking culture and psychology out of the subject, if someone were gay and you were exposed (visually, audibly, or through smell), you couldn't catch a disease from them. So if someone likes gay people, they will not get stressed or sick when they are exposed. So why do anti-gay people get sick from gay people? Is it because of the gay people themselves? No, it's because of the way the anti-gay people think that leads to their physiological distress.
Another illustration of an S - O - R model:
Someone did a study (sorry, don't know the source) where subjects watch a baby get circumcized. Some subjects were told that the baby's tears (from being circumcized) were tears of joy. The physiological measurements of those subjects showed that they weren't stressed. They told another group of subjects that the baby's tears were tears of pain. The physiological measurements of these subjects showed higher levels of stress. So it's what they THOUGHT that led to stress, not the act of circumcision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here's the model for smoking:
Cigarette = S
Physical response = R
This is an S - R model. There is no cognitive processing that regulates a physical response to the cigarette smoke. In other words, you may get a sore throat, develop lung cancer, or other diseases or irritated physical responses REGARDLESS of what you think about the smoke. Here, your thoughts are not related to your response.
Another illustration of an S - R model:
If you stick a pencil in your ear, it will physiologically hurt. You won't think to yourself, "I don't like the pencil therefore it hurts," or, "I am in love with this pencil therefore this pain means joy to me." Even if you try to enjoy the pain, it's still pain caused by the pencil, not by your thoughts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
My argument still holds because I am strictly referring to a physiological response of an unwanted stimulus. Your examples provide a physiological response to one's thoughts and interpretations. While your example can be corrected by reteaching the traumatized folk to tolerate gay people, I cannot correct my sore throats, or any other sickness formed but convincing myself that cigarette smoke is great. Therefore, I still argue that because I have an unmalleable negative physiological reaction to the stimulus you are providing (cigarette smoke), I believe that I still have the right to tell you to take it elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| quote: | | I'm not even going to comment on the "Black" comments made because when I first read them, I knew there was going to be backlash because it's not a fair analogy. Although, FYI, your comment about being black not making you more prone to disease is incorrect. Off the top of my head, I know that blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia. |
My bad. The color of your skin does not CAUSE any diseases. Cigarettes CAUSE diseases.
| quote: | | Even with the number of anti-smokers out there, I don't think your figures reagarding people in favor of smoking bans are accurate if you think that they apply to outdoor smoking. |
Very good point. And no, I can't provide good figures regarding people in favor of smoking bans in outdoor public areas. But I bet the majority of the people of that town in California are in favor of it. ;)
| quote: | | I know there's a lot out there who would ban smoking, period. There's even more out there who think that you and your boyfriend shouldn't be allowed to be married. Does that make them right? |
Again, think back to the S - O - R vs. the S - R model.
| quote: | | Is this new idea in Cali of no smoking in public areas a compromise in any fashion? No, it's facism on a choice that people make. We already have enough drugs banned in this country. Give people the opportunity to relax after having to deal with the BS of everyday life. For some people, that means having a smoke. |
I don't have any problem with you smoking. However, I do have a problem with smelling your habit. So keep it away from my nose.
| quote: | | Also, if you want to ban smoking for health reasons, can we please ban everything else that's detrimental to the health of society? Like fast food, or SUVs, or hell, even stupidity. |
Oh no no no. Don't go off topic again. When I make an argument, I don't want to hear, "If you want Y because of X, then why not do Y because of A, B & C?" My claim is to ban smoking for health reasons. I am not claiming to ban fast food, SUVs, or stupidity, because all of those subjects have different factors and require a different argument altogether. You can get a disease by occasionally smoking (as opposed to fast food). Cigarettes are not a major form of transportation (as opposed to cars). And cigarettes do not think (unlike stupid people). Please keep on topic, thanks. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
The main flaw in your point is that while my argument against smoking is affiliated with an unwanted PHYSIOLOGICAL stimulus, your devil's advocate comparison of being gay or black is affiliated with an unwanted SOCIAL stimulus.
Try again NebulousQ, this time without bringing blacks and gays into the argument. :haha: |
If you had read my post carefully you would have seen that I had already addressed these points.
There are two types of "Physiological" side effects from second hand smoke: the immediate (short term) and the delayed (long term).
The immediate physiological side effects include coughing, irritation, watery - eyes, etc. These are not serious at all and the same effects are felt when someone has not bathed in a while or wears too much perfume. Are there any laws against those two things? No.
The long term side effects of second hand smoke can be serious and life threatening. How ever, inhaling second hand smoke while walking by a smoker causes less damage to you than all the smog you breathe in everyday and all the contaminants you drink in a glass of tap water (well depending on which part of the States you live in).
The health detriments to second smoke in open places or "once in a while" in closed places are dwarfed by many other daily activities practiced by the populace. They are not enough to merit the amount of attention given to second hand smoke.
I did not know you are gay and I did not mean for my last comment to be a personal jab, the same thing goes if you are black. Most people on this board seem to be socially liberal and would balk at discriminatory laws against most groups of people, as do I. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | There are two types of "Physiological" side effects from second hand smoke: the immediate (short term) and the delayed (long term).
The immediate physiological side effects include coughing, irritation, watery - eyes, etc. These are not serious at all and the same effects are felt when someone has not bathed in a while or wears too much perfume. Are there any laws against those two things? No. |
[editted because i misinterpretted the argument]
The vast majority of Americans take baths and don't reek, and when they do, they're usually asked to leave in many places. So why not ask smokers to leave when they light one up too?
| quote: | | The long term side effects of second hand smoke can be serious and life threatening. How ever, inhaling second hand smoke while walking by a smoker causes less damage to you than all the smog you breathe in everyday and all the contaminants you drink in a glass of tap water (well depending on which part of the States you live in). |
This is the whole "If you want Y because of X, then why not want Y because of A, B & C" argument again. You can't filter out any contaminants in second-hand cigarette smoke like you can in tap water. And I'll say this for what, the 4th time in this thread?: smog is bad and should be dealt with, but because it is not being dealt with to the degree cigarette smoke is being dealt, it does NOT justify keeping cigarette smoke from being banned. Please stop bring up smog/car exhaust. I'm really getting tired of explaining myself over and over.
| quote: | | The health detriments to second smoke in open places or "once in a while" in closed places are dwarfed by many other daily activities practiced by the populace. They are not enough to merit the amount of attention given to second hand smoke. |
Just because someone has an acute illness in America, it doesn't mean we should ignore treating them just because someone is dying of AIDS in Africa. And I think there is enough merit for second hand smoke effects in combination with immediate physiological effects to back a ban against cigarette smoke in many areas. You already pointed out the coughing, irritation and watery eyes. This happens from second-hand smoke too. I think those effects are enough to tell someone to take their smoking elsewhere for the same reason when a neighbor has their stereo too loud, you can tell them "Turn it down, it's too loud."
| quote: | | I did not know you are gay and I did not mean for my last comment to be a personal jab, the same thing goes if you are black. Most people on this board seem to be socially liberal and would balk at discriminatory laws against most groups of people, as do I. |
I never took personal offense at your gay remarks. So stop apologizing. :tongue2
And I like where this argument is going. You're looking for loopholes in every area of my argument, making me rethink and reconstruct my stance. I like that. You're like a devil's advocate teacher's assistant in health class. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
If you had read my post carefully you would have seen that I had already addressed these points.
There are two types of "Physiological" side effects from second hand smoke: the immediate (short term) and the delayed (long term).
The immediate physiological side effects include coughing, irritation, watery - eyes, etc. These are not serious at all and the same effects are felt when someone has not bathed in a while or wears too much perfume. Are there any laws against those two things? No.
The long term side effects of second hand smoke can be serious and life threatening. How ever, inhaling second hand smoke while walking by a smoker causes less damage to you than all the smog you breathe in everyday and all the contaminants you drink in a glass of tap water (well depending on which part of the States you live in).
The health detriments to second smoke in open places or "once in a while" in closed places are dwarfed by many other daily activities practiced by the populace. They are not enough to merit the amount of attention given to second hand smoke.
I did not know you are gay and I did not mean for my last comment to be a personal jab, the same thing goes if you are black. Most people on this board seem to be socially liberal and would balk at discriminatory laws against most groups of people, as do I. |
You didn't know he was gay? Where have you been? I think it's mentioned in pretty much every post he makes. :)
Jake, it's pretty obvious you've got your mind set on where you stand, so these are my last few comments on the topic as I don't have the time to write long arguments like this while I'm still at work. I don't care how many S-O-R models you throw out, you're not getting me to agree that walking past someone who's smoking outside is hazardous to your health. It's an inconvenience, nothing more.
Also, I think it's gotten to the point that some people (possibly even you) have socially conditioned themselves to have negative physiological effects from smoke. Before you tell me I'm full of , think about your argument: that 2nd hand exposure to cigarette smoke in an outdoor environment is physically harmful to you. I'm not saying smoking is healthy, or that prolonged, confined exposure is safe, but the next time you see a smoker in front of you on the sidewalk as you walk, just hold your breath for 5 seconds and keep walking. It's the same thing that I do when I walk behind a smog-emitting tour bus when I cross the street during rush hour in NYC, but then again, maybe we should ban them, too.
For some people, if smoking is banned in public areas, they can't have a cigarette all day. Imagine being a smoker and going on a business trip to another city. People can't smoke in most hotel rooms, now you want to say that they can't smoke outside the hotel. Should they be forced to take a cab (also can't smoke in) out to the wilderness, and have a cigarette there, then return? I know you think that's better for everyone, but stop trying to legislate someone else's choice. Exposure to outdoor cigarette smoke never killed anyone and it's not going to anytime soon.
^^^^ Just read the first paragraph of your post above. You obviously missed the argument regarding the perfume/bathing entirely. He wasn't talking about self-exposure, he was talking about when your next to some smelly person in the subway or have an office next door to the woman who uses half a bottle of Chanel in the morning. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
You didn't know he was gay? Where have you been? I think it's mentioned in pretty much every post he makes. :) |
I haven't brought it up in weeks, but everyone else has. Remind me to kill you later.:whip:
| quote: |
Jake, it's pretty obvious you've got your mind set on where you stand, so these are my last few comments on the topic as I don't have the time to write long arguments like this while I'm still at work. I don't care how many S-O-R models you throw out, you're not getting me to agree that walking past someone who's smoking outside is hazardous to your health. It's an inconvenience, nothing more. |
I'm done arguing too. I've said enough. And I'll agree that it's an inconvenice.
| quote: | | Also, I think it's gotten to the point that some people (possibly even you) have socially conditioned themselves to have negative physiological effects from smoke. |
NOPE! Not at all. I've withstood cigarette smoke for SEVEN whole -me-up-the-ass years until I finally decided to keep out of smoking bars/clubs/dance places. Since day one of being exposed, I've had negative reactions and this was long before I researched the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke. Cigarette smoke has been with me for a lot of experience in my life and is associated with the best times I've had. But guess what? I still want you to go outside or get out of my face when you light your nasty habit up.
It's strictly physiological effects as I have thoroughly explained and used the S - R model to explain further. If you cannot provide a reason why I've been conditioned SOCIALLY to hate it, then don't discredit my argument without backing up your own.
Here's another example of my point:
I can't eat sticky white rice because it gets caught in my tonsils and I get sore throats (again, Jesus!) But I love Japanese food. I don't care how much I love it though because I hate getting sick above all else. So I don't eat it anymore (unless they have brown rice, which they never do). My point is, regardless of what I think of the situation, my decision is based on physiology first if I get sick or physically irritated from it.
| quote: | | Before you tell me I'm full of , think about your argument: that 2nd hand exposure to cigarette smoke in an outdoor environment is physically harmful to you. I'm not saying smoking is healthy, or that prolonged, confined exposure is safe, but the next time you see a smoker in front of you on the sidewalk as you walk, just hold your breath for 5 seconds and keep walking. It's the same thing that I do when I walk behind a smog-emitting tour bus when I cross the street during rush hour in NYC, but then again, maybe we should ban them, too. |
No, you're right, but wrong when it's CROWDED. When you're out walking around a club area or other populated areas, cigarette smoke is filled with nearly every breathe you take. If you held your breathe for 5 seconds everytime you'd smell smoke walking down Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Times Square in New York, or Santa Monica BLVD Sat night in West Hollywood, you'd PASS OUT. It's a lot more than just one person every mile lighting one up in those areas. (I'm not making a case for suburban or rural areas.)
| quote: | | For some people, if smoking is banned in public areas, they can't have a cigarette all day. |
Whose fault is it for starting the habit? Not mine. So why should I smell it?
| quote: | | Imagine being a smoker and going on a business trip to another city. People can't smoke in most hotel rooms, now you want to say that they can't smoke outside the hotel. Should they be forced to take a cab (also can't smoke in) out to the wilderness, and have a cigarette there, then return? I know you think that's better for everyone, but stop trying to legislate someone else's choice. Exposure to outdoor cigarette smoke never killed anyone and it's not going to anytime soon. |
I don't think they should travel too far to smoke, but I don't think they should be loitering around every corner I turn and in front of every entrance I have to go through. Do they not realize that I'm not addicted to cigarettes and would like to smell clean air? It's my choice to breathe clean air, so stop trying to legistlate my choice to breathe right.
| quote: |
^^^^ Just read the first paragraph of your post above. You obviously missed the argument regarding the perfume/bathing entirely. He wasn't talking about self-exposure, he was talking about when your next to some smelly person in the subway or have an office next door to the woman who uses half a bottle of Chanel in the morning. |
:eek: You're right. I deleted it out of shame. Here's my revised rebuttle:
The vast majority of Americans take baths and don't reek, and when they do, they're usually asked to leave in many places. So why not ask smokers to leave when they light one up too? |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
After reading your rebuttals and arguements Jake I believe that we actually agree on many points. Second Hand smoke is bad, it would be nice if there were many areas free of smoke, etc. We both believe that smoking is inherently bad and detrimental to many peoples health. However where we seem to disagree is where exactly the government should step in.
You seem to take a more socialist view, that the government should step in to protect and "better" the lives of its citizens.
I take a more view, that the government should stay out to protect the "freedom" of the lives of its citizens.
Both views are have their strengths and weakness and both can tend to more dangerous activities/non-activities of the government.
The reason I take the view I do is because I am less afraid of the government slipping to a point where it does not act at all slipping the country into anarchy. I am more afraid or the government acting too much, sticking its nose where it shouldnt belong. I see this smoking ban, and other such laws, as slipping farther down a slippery slope to place I would not want the government to go.
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
You're like a devil's advocate teacher's assistant in health class. |
Um what? lol. |
|
|
|
|
