Tyrants in Maryland do it again

[Dutch6]

What's wrong with this statement?

You mean we have a choice?

 

[vraiblonde]

You can choose to patronize non-smoking restaurants, just don’t smoke for the 1 hour that you are eating.

So can you.

But rather than exercise your choice, you and people like you have removed MY choices instead.

 

[Larry Gude]

My mind...

So can you.

But rather than exercise your choice, you and people like you have removed MY choices instead.

...envisions a Terminator like world where John Conner is desperately trying to help smokers survive annihilation, living like rats in desolation and bare existence while the Anti's send Hunter/Killers out of their way, far from their own world, to make sure that even the idea of smoking doesn't survive.

 

[PsyOps]

That's not fair and it doesn't tell the story.

Is smoking legal? Yes. It it rather restricted? Yes. Anyone in here older than 40? Anyone remember smoking on airplanes? In movie theatres? In department stores and, for crying out loud, in the grocery store? How about the little aluminium ashtrays at McDonald's?

Smokers can't light up in the workplace. They can't light up walking around the common area of a mall. They can't smoke just about anywhere except bars and home. They have been persecuted in a manner that is completely inconsistent with the Constitution and simple fairness. This is the same kind of incremental rot that passes for civil the last 30 years that affects us in so many other areas that slowly, one by one, day by day have coarsened our culture

I am older than 40 and I remember that fact of life of having to put up with others smoking in offices, busses, planes, everywhere… I had to live with my parents smoking in their house throughout my childhood. My eyes constantly burned, had constant headaches, I coughed all the time, and my clothes stunk. I have no idea what affect this will have on my health later on. The only reason smokers are persecuted is because of 1) the stupidity of the addiction. It has cost the health care system billions whether it be through insurance claims or cost shifting with those that have no insurance. Yeah I know, Vrai is going to jump in here and demand proof that anyone got heart disease or lung cancer as a result of smoking. It’s that sort of denial that is part of the stupidity of the addiction; and 2) forcing non-smokers to smoke. How is THAT fair? Why should I be forced to smoke if I don’t want to? Where is my Constitutional right to NOT smoke? I happen to think my right to not smoke overrides your right to smoke. Not smoking affects no one. Smoking affects everyone around the smoker; through this a smoker’s rights are restricted. To me saying a smoker has a right to smoke wherever is like saying a racecar driver has a right to drive 100 mph wherever.

Smoking should be banned or not, end of story. It can't be banned because that means every single last thing we do that might offend or injure someone else, from bbqing in the back yard to driving a car to eating an unapproved food will be on the chopping block and in the courthouse.

The only way I think smoking should be banned is on the premise of cigarette manufacturers lacing their products in order to keep customers addicted. And they ARE doing this. It’s a purposeful manipulation of their customers. But this is not about offending others. This has to do with health. Smoking is unhealthy. It’s unhealthy for the smoker, but if you want to rot your health that’s your business. But don’t force me into it. So no smoking shouldn’t be illegal; it should just be illegal around those that don’t smoke. Sort of like screaming fire. You can't do it falsely in a public place, but you can do it all day long in your own home. And all those things you mentioned are on the “chopping block” in our courts. Should they be? I don’t think so… I would much rather approach this from a position of courtesy than legislation or litigation. But smokers don't care about that. They only care about that next fix. Your other examples don’t work for this reason: BBqing is a form of eating. We must eat. We must drive our cars to get to work in order to earn the money to bbq what we eat. Eating “unapproved” food affects no one except the person eating it. Smoking, as I have already stated, affects everyone around the smoker.

We should not, as a society, be able to tell a bar or restaurant that they can't allow smoking. They should make that choice and let the market decide. Or, we should tell them no smoking and no bad food and no loud music and no profanity and no, well, no alcohol either.

I am partially with you on this; but here is the quandary… What about those that have to work at these establishments? Should waiters and waitresses have to work in an environment full of smoke? Are employers to limit their hiring to people that smoke in order to keep employees? It’s not just the customer base that drives such businesses. I don’t think such decisions should be hijacked on the premise of a perceived RIGHT to do something that affects the health of others.

We are quick to pull a weapon on anyone that offends us and lose all perspective of what we're are doing and why and what is appropriate and, worse yet, failing to see how easily that weapon can be turned on us for our choices.

I only want smokers to remember that it’s their right to smoke; but it’s NOT their right to force others to smoke. When you are smoking around me (as a non-smoker), whether you want to believe the fact or not, you are making me smoke as well. To your headline point: That’s not fair.

 

[PsyOps]

So can you.

But rather than exercise your choice, you and people like you have removed MY choices instead.

I haven't removed your choice to patronize anywhere. You just can't smoke there. Are you telling me you can't give up your smokes for one hour to down your meal?

 

[mAlice]

I haven't removed your choice to patronize anywhere. You just can't smoke there.

In your warped sense of what is right, this is what you'd believe.

Are you telling me you can't give up your smokes for one hour to down your meal?

We can, but now we'll no longer have that choice. Anywhere. Thanks a lot, nazi's.

 

[Larry Gude]

But Psy...

...that world of smoke everywhere is gone! Is your anger and resentment so deep and hurt filled that we MUST eradicate every last one of them? Can't we save, if just a few, and, maybe put them in museums or something? Maybe put a few on ice so that future generations can see and examine a real, live smoker? Maybe dissect one or two?

After all. Manner people long for the 'good old days'. Well, in the 'good old days' EVERYONE smoked.

 

[Larry Gude]

Plus Psy...

...smokers are CHEAPER to the health care system. They die younger. They aren't around at 80 and 90 getting new hearts and hips and massive does of blue pills.

 

[PsyOps]

Why don't you grab my balls and squeeze a little harder. I think you should be banned from using the public bathrooms because you stink them up and I have to breath that crap. Our government is getting too much control.

Give me a break. Aren't there natural things that occur in life like stinking up restrooms? I'm just asking you not to smoke around me. But if you can't handle the stench of my dung, then... well... I guess your crap doesn... oh, what's the use. HERE........

 

[mAlice]

I am older than 40 and I remember that fact of life of having to put up with others smoking in offices, busses, planes, everywhere… I had to live with my parents smoking in their house throughout my childhood. My eyes constantly burned, had constant headaches, I coughed all the time, and my clothes stunk. I have no idea what affect this will have on my health later on. The only reason smokers are persecuted is because of 1) the stupidity of the addiction. It has cost the health care system billions whether it be through insurance claims or cost shifting with those that have no insurance. Yeah I know, Vrai is going to jump in here and demand proof that anyone got heart disease or lung cancer as a result of smoking. It’s that sort of denial that is part of the stupidity of the addiction; and 2) forcing non-smokers to smoke. How is THAT fair? Why should I be forced to smoke if I don’t want to? Where is my Constitutional right to NOT smoke? I happen to think my right to not smoke overrides your right to smoke. Not smoking affects no one. Smoking affects everyone around the smoker; through this a smoker’s rights are restricted. To me saying a smoker has a right to smoke wherever is like saying a racecar driver has a right to drive 100 mph wherever.


The only way I think smoking should be banned is on the premise of cigarette manufacturers lacing their products in order to keep customers addicted. And they ARE doing this. It’s a purposeful manipulation of their customers. But this is not about offending others. This has to do with health. Smoking is unhealthy. It’s unhealthy for the smoker, but if you want to rot your health that’s your business. But don’t force me into it. So no smoking shouldn’t be illegal; it should just be illegal around those that don’t smoke. Sort of like screaming fire. You can't do it falsely in a public place, but you can do it all day long in your own home. And all those things you mentioned are on the “chopping block” in our courts. Should they be? I don’t think so… I would much rather approach this from a position of courtesy than legislation or litigation. But smokers don't care about that. They only care about that next fix. Your other examples don’t work for this reason: BBqing is a form of eating. We must eat. We must drive our cars to get to work in order to earn the money to bbq what we eat. Eating “unapproved” food affects no one except the person eating it. Smoking, as I have already stated, affects everyone around the smoker.


I am partially with you on this; but here is the quandary… What about those that have to work at these establishments? Should waiters and waitresses have to work in an environment full of smoke? Are employers to limit their hiring to people that smoke in order to keep employees? It’s not just the customer base that drives such businesses. I don’t think such decisions should be hijacked on the premise of a perceived RIGHT to do something that affects the health of others.

I only want smokers to remember that it’s their right to smoke; but it’s NOT their right to force others to smoke. When you are smoking around me (as a non-smoker), whether you want to believe the fact or not, you are making me smoke as well. To your headline point: That’s not fair.

Perfect example of "the squeeky wheel gets the oil".

 

[vraiblonde]

When you are smoking around me (as a non-smoker), whether you want to believe the fact or not, you are making me smoke as well.

Actually, you're making yourself smoke by being around *me*. You have a choice to sit there and smell smoke, or you can go somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to sit there and take it.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm just asking you not to smoke around me.

And I'm asking you to stay away from me while I'm smoking.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why didn't you say so...

I and 2) forcing non-smokers to smoke. How is THAT fair? Why should I be forced to smoke if I don’t want to? Where is my Constitutional right to NOT smoke? I happen to think my right to not smoke overrides your right to smoke.

...I had no idea smokers were making you light up. Man, if only we had conceal carry laws, maybe you could fend them off or at least get out alive?

Do they at least have the deceny to make you smoke lights or are they shoving Lucky's into your mouth?

 

[mAlice]

I'm looking forward to the day that something psychoops likes is taken away. I'm gonna' dance in the street.

 

[Dutch6]

Give me a break. Aren't there natural things that occur in life like stinking up restrooms? I'm just asking you not to smoke around me. But if you can't handle the stench of my dung, then... well... I guess your crap doesn... oh, what's the use. HERE........

If you can't hang around me because I smoke that's your choice just as it's my choice to smoke!

 

[vraiblonde]

I haven't removed your choice to patronize anywhere. You just can't smoke there.

This is one of the more selfish one-sided arguments I've ever seen.

Again, what about the business owner? Do they or do they not have a right to decide what legal activities they allow in their establishment?

 

[PsyOps]

...that world of smoke everywhere is gone! Is your anger and resentment so deep and hurt filled that we MUST eradicate every last one of them? Can't we save, if just a few, and, maybe put them in museums or something? Maybe put a few on ice so that future generations can see and examine a real, live smoker? Maybe dissect one or two?

After all. Manner people long for the 'good old days'. Well, in the 'good old days' EVERYONE smoked.

Okay, time to come clean here... It doesn't bother me as much as I am putting out. I am putting the arguement out there as a means to clarify the point. It is my hope that EVERYONE stop smoking because it is a dirty, stinking, unhealthy, destructive addiction; And it's just plain stupid. But not by some legislative mandate, but by choice and common sense. I hear Vrai use the word retarded a lot... Well, I happen to thing sucking smoke into your lungs is retarded. I don't want folks smoking around me. But if they are, I really don't make a big deal about it. It annoys me that they think it's their right to smoke up my space; it annoys me that they think it's so much their right that they can pelt my car every day up and back from work with their burning embers. These aren't the good old days anymore. These are days filled with self-serving people at every level. Smoking is just a small tip of that rudeness.

 

[PsyOps]

This is one of the more selfish one-sided arguments I've ever seen.

Again, what about the business owner? Do they or do they not have a right to decide what legal activities they allow in their establishment?

and which side would that be Vrai? Yours or mine?

 

[Larry Gude]

Hold up...

I … I would much rather approach this from a position of courtesy than legislation or litigation. But smokers don't care about that. They only care about that next fix. Your other examples don’t work for this reason: BBqing is a form of eating. We must eat. We must drive our cars to get to work in order to earn the money to bbq what we eat. Eating “unapproved” food affects no one except the person eating it. Smoking, as I have already stated, affects everyone around the smoker.

You MUST use a bbq and send belching carcinogens towards my back yard?

You can't walk or ride a bike? Why, society is only manipulating you to think you MUST drive a car, that you MUST live so far from work.

You MUST eat a cheeseburger? What about the cost, #1 btw, to our medical system, heart disease related to cheeseburger eaters who drive everywhere?

What about the whole chain of people involved, forced, to provide you with that cheeseburger? The poor bastard who has to put a hole is Daisy's head and gut her? The person forced to transport your meal of death? The innocent illegal immigrant force to inhale the fumes of fratricide as your steak, that you HAVE TO HAVE, cooks over the grill? Hmm? Affects no one, eh? How about anxiety riddled little kinds confronted with the reality that Daisy HAD TO die just because YOU won't eat bean curd?

Well?

 

[PsyOps]

Again, what about the business owner? Do they or do they not have a right to decide what legal activities they allow in their establishment?

I have already stated that I don't think this should be legislated. It should be up to the owner. I'm not claiming it's an easy situation. I definitely don't want to go down that slippery slope of legislating these sort of things.