The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking

[rack'm]

Life is terminal.

 

[Tonio]

It is not the smoking issue with me. It is government sticking its ugly head into everything.

I agree. That's how I feel as well. I guess I'm more passionate about certain aspects of government intrusion, such as free speech and religion, because I hate being told what not to say and what not to believe. I think those areas are a key difference between America and the Middle Eastern countries, both the Islamist dicatorships and the secular dictatorships. Did you read about the Pakistani cleric who offered a car and the equivalent of $25K to whoever murders the Danish cartoonist?

 

[SamSpade]

It is not the smoking issue with me. It is government sticking its ugly head into everything.

Do you think the government should do nothing, with regard to public health?

For instance, let's say you have a neighbor who lets garbage pile up in his yard for MONTHS until he takes it all to the dump. (This is an *real* situation that happened in the Ranch CLub). Further, his property is covered with "land mines" from the tons of animals he has. He doesn't get along with his next door neighbor - so he regularly pees on his yard.

Don't you think the government has an obligation to force this guy to stop harming the public health?

Another real case - neighbor is dumping his oil from his car - down the water at the creek. Also stores a PILE of dead batteries in the corner of his yard, leaking crap all over the place. Nothing?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Do you think the government should do nothing, with regard to public health?

For instance, let's say you have a neighbor who lets garbage pile up in his yard for MONTHS until he takes it all to the dump. (This is an *real* situation that happened in the Ranch CLub). Further, his property is covered with "land mines" from the tons of animals he has. He doesn't get along with his next door neighbor - so he regularly pees on his yard.

Don't you think the government has an obligation to force this guy to stop harming the public health?

Another real case - neighbor is dumping his oil from his car - down the water at the creek. Also stores a PILE of dead batteries in the corner of his yard, leaking crap all over the place. Nothing?

CRE: Contact the front office. It will or should be taken care of. It is not really the public health if the "land minds" are on his property. And if he urinates on the ground, so do all the dogs, cats, deer, possums, and other wildlife. Not only that, birds crap on cars.

The oil thing is a problem, but is it the feds business? No. It is a local matter and should be handled locally.

There are issues that government, because people are just plain too selfish to think of anyone but themselves, must step in. My opinion is that should happen at the absolute lowest level that is reasonable. Is it reasonable for the Feds to have a navy and other armed forces (even thought the Air Force is not constitutional)? Yes. Is it reasonable for the feds to tell some bar in Solomons they have to put in a ventilation system because of smoke? No.

Governmental issues have been moved toward Washington for two reasons; concentration of power and concentration of money. The closer the power and money are to the local people the easier it is to control by the people. The farther up the chain it goes, the harder it is for an individual to make an impact. Two hundred people call their U.S. Senator to try to get something done. No impact. Two hundred people call a county commissioner trying to get something done. Get out of the way, something is being done.

The very nature of people make government evil because people with money and power are usually corrupted by it.

 

[Toxick]

You inhale and ingest all sorts of stuff that is not good for you. Ever eat fish?

Fun Fact:
Did you know that the average fish today contains more mercury than a rectal thermometer?


WOULD YOU EAT A RECTAL THERMOMETER?

 

[Tonio]

Do you think the government should do nothing, with regard to public health?

Valid question. DWI laws exist because drunks behind the wheel can harm innocent people. With abusive and neglectful parents, the state can take away their kids for the sake of protection.

For seatbelt and helmet laws, I think lawmakers may have felt that people who injure themselves while not wearing protection can become a financial burden on society. Or if they're the primary breadwinners, their families may need assistance. I don't know if that's accurate.

My question is, when it comes to personal behavior, when and how should government get involved? Should the standard be whether the behavior harms other people?

 

[mAlice]

Life is terminal.

Exactly. No matter how much you try to control the environment around you, nobody gets out alive. There is no guarantee that not being exposed to second hand smoke, exhaust fumes, led, etc, will give you a longer life than the one you've been dealt. When your number is up, you're outta' here.

 

[Toxick]

For seatbelt and helmet laws, I think lawmakers may have felt that people who injure themselves while not wearing protection can become a financial burden on society.

I suppose that COULD be the case - but I rather think that it's a feel-good warm-fuzzy law than anything else. Mr. Governor can hold a press conference and harumph that "Er-a, Er-a... Thanks to my initiative 'Operation Seat-Belt Oppression' 50,000 lives were saved this month alone! YAY ME!!!"


And how can anyone be against saving lives?

How can we vote against someone who's SAVING OUR LIFE DAILY!!??!??

My question is, when it comes to personal behavior, when and how should government get involved? Should the standard be whether the behavior harms other people?

Well that's the fun part.

Who determines when behavior becomes harmful to others.

I think smokin' weed is harmless - certainly a lot less harmful than booze. But there's 100's of people in this very forum who will argue until their blue in the face that Joe Pothead is an absolute menace to society for huffing on doobies in his basement, and one puff will turn someone into Rev. Jim Ignatowski.

How 'bout Prostitution? Does it affect anyone AT ALL if John & Mary have sex, or if there was money involved?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Valid question. DWI laws exist because drunks behind the wheel can harm innocent people. With abusive and neglectful parents, the state can take away their kids for the sake of protection.

For seatbelt and helmet laws, I think lawmakers may have felt that people who injure themselves while not wearing protection can become a financial burden on society. Or if they're the primary breadwinners, their families may need assistance. I don't know if that's accurate.

My question is, when it comes to personal behavior, when and how should government get involved? Should the standard be whether the behavior harms other people?

Personal injury and health issues are only a burden to the taxpayers because government is doing something else they should not do, providing for the individual. If everyone was responsible for their own insurance, hospital, doctor, then injury and health issues would not be a burden on the government.

Life insurance should be the responsibility of the individual, so accidental death should not be the governments business either.

It should be about personal freedom and personal responsibility. They go hand in hand. The more we depend on government to do for us, the more control they exercise over us.

Now if an insurance company wants to charge higher premiums for smoking or skydiving or riding a motorcycle, that is fine, but it is not governments job to regulate the individuals health habits or assumed risks.

It goes right along with people not wanting government in their bedrooms. There are all sorts of laws on the books that most couples violate. How about a video camera in every room of the house so that the government can monitor all your activities? Embedded chip so they can track everywhere and every thing you do?

The more people ask/allow/submit to government doing or controlling the more freedom is lost.

 

[Railroad]

I have a problem with all bans. It is not governments job to regulate those type of issues. Please show me where in the U.S. or Maryland Constitutions that either the feds or Maryland has the right to do so. They don't.

What happened to freedom? Hello? This is supposed top be the Free State. This is the United States, home of the Liberty Bell, "Let Freedom Ring".

Slippery slope gets more slippery and steeper all the time. Big Brother is here and getting more powerful and he is not associate with The Holding Company or Janis Joplin.

One dynamic that's hard to quantify is how much of the government involvement is the result of people dragging the government into things. Some folks believe the government should be fixing all kinds of things that they don't like. I sometimes wonder if all the penny-ante distractions aren't the cause of government's failure at things it SHOULD be doing. I think we have a special-interest-group-driven government, and it's a self-perpetuating condition. And I'll bet that, to a politician, those who think it should not be so are - you guessed it - just another special-interest group.

 

[sushisamba]

Anybody got a light?

 

[Tonio]

I suppose that COULD be the case - but I rather think that it's a feel-good warm-fuzzy law than anything else. Mr. Governor can hold a press conference and harumph that "Er-a, Er-a... Thanks to my initiative 'Operation Seat-Belt Oppression' 50,000 lives were saved this month alone! YAY ME!!!"

How 'bout Prostitution? Does it affect anyone AT ALL if John & Mary have sex, or if there was money involved?

Excellent point. You're right about politicians and feel-good laws.

Prostitution and polygamy in principle are private matters. In practice, however, both involve exploitation of women, often very young girls, so I think that is why both of these are illegal. I've heard of extremist Mormons, as well as Muslims, forcing marriage upon girls as young as 8 or 9. I think lawmakers have also regarded prostitution as a danger to public health since it can spread STDs. Some European countries have regulated prostitution as a way to prevent exploitation and disease.

 

[2ndAmendment]

One dynamic that's hard to quantify is how much of the government involvement is the result of people dragging the government into things. Some folks believe the government should be fixing all kinds of things that they don't like. I sometimes wonder if all the penny-ante distractions aren't the cause of government's failure at things it SHOULD be doing. I think we have a special-interest-group-driven government, and it's a self-perpetuating condition. And I'll bet that, to a politician, those who think it should not be so are - you guessed it - just another special-interest group.

I don't think many politicians need to be drug into assuming power. They are eager to do it.

As a hippie in the '60s, I remember saying myself, "the government ought to do something about that." Looking back, no they should not have, but they did and now I and others are stuck with yet another government program sticking is self-perpetuating useless nose into our business. And there is not an end to programs once started. They self perpetuate even if totally overcome by events.

 

[BuddyLee]

You inhale and ingest all sorts of stuff that is not good for you. Ever eat fish? How about beef? Pork? Fruit? Vegetables? They have various pesticides, hormones, all sorts of stuff that is not really good for you. Most foods contain trace levels of arsenic. Fish and seafoods can accumulate considerable amounts of organic arsenic from their environment. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/food-safety-topics/chemicals-in-food/arsenic/

Many foods contain detectable levels of cyanide that is normally well below 1 mg/kg (ppm), with the exception of foods such as cassava, sorghum, wild cherries, almonds and lima beans, which may contain several hundred mg/kg cyanide. http://www.doh.gov.za/department/foodcontrol/newsletter/2003/august.html#5

Apples have cyanide in the seeds as do apricots, peaches.

I bet if you had the choice you wouldn't though, right?

Also, pointing to other problems doesn't negate the initial.

 

[MMDad]

Fun Fact:
Did you know that the average fish today contains more mercury than a rectal thermometer?

But the fish tastes better.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

I don't think anyone said general health is off limits, but you also have to admit that that one phrase in the preamble doesn't give the government carte blanch to dictate every facet of our lives. Promote doesn't mean control.

..but is that what it is, control?

Do they 'control' us by enforcing clean water standards at the local water plant?

Do they 'control' us by making our cars and our power plants cleaner?

You CAN still smoke, you just can't do it where it affects other people.

Would you be in favor of optional food safety standards? Optional industry pollution standards?

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Hamilton was a liberal of the group. Madison is known as the father of the Constitution.

..but you said go back to the papers and Hammie wrote 'em. Or perhaps you meant for me to refer to Jay?

 

[Larry Gude]

That's not very accurate...

So, you being a liberal conservative and me being a strict constructionist are at odds. You side with Hamilton and I with Madison. Liberal vs. true conservative

...in the context of the Federalists papers, is it?

Maybe you should have said 'refer back to Madison'?

 

[MMDad]

..but is that what it is, control?

Do they 'control' us by enforcing clean water standards at the local water plant?

Do they 'control' us by making our cars and our power plants cleaner?

You CAN still smoke, you just can't do it where it affects other people.

Would you be in favor of optional food safety standards? Optional industry pollution standards?

Clean water standards are based on science. They set thresholds. X amount of arsenic is okay, but more shuts you down. Same for power plants, cars, food safety, and industrial pollution.

Outright bans are dictatorship.

If they government sets exposure limits as a safety issue, that is "promoting the general welfare". If they ban smoking, they have removed one problem, but have done nothing to "promote the general welfare", they have restricted behaviour and pandered to a special interest. That definitely does not "ensure the blessings of liberty".

I would love to never be exposed to second hand smoke again. I just want the government to be honest about their approach. If they are trying to protect workers, use OSHA. If they are protecting the environment, approach it through EPA. If it's public health, use HHS. This would really be "promoting the general welfare".

 

[Angel]

One day I decided to be healthy... For four years I decided smoking wasn't healthy, so I didn't smoke and I was a health nut. I got screwed... I ended up with Clark 2 Melenoma Skin Cancer. Apparently Clark 2 is lucky because anything after that is bad, very bad. I was fortunate. I was happy after they removed it, that it was gone. It doesn't matter what you do before or after the fact. If you are screwed from the get go, you are just screwed. Such is life. Is the glass half full or is it half empty? I do not know, but I do know that it did not matter that I decided to do "right" by my body. I still got screwed. SO, I smoke now and I drink if I want to. EFF it. It just doesn't matter. I may be screwed either way. Life is just to short to let the Government or the people decide what is good for me.