Tyrants in Maryland do it again

[mAlice]

So you agree there are health consequences to the non-smoker.

That's not the argument. The argument is the right to completely remove the choices of others.

 

[Larry Gude]

And...

Then you had a choice.

Larry smoked when I met and married him. I specifically requested a smoker in my personal ad. The respondents who said they didn't smoke themselves but didn't mind being around smokers got tossed in the discard pile immediately because I knew eventually they would "change their minds" and nag me to change as well.

Larry hasn't been too bad since he quit smoking, but it definitely annoys him and he wishes I would quit. Now he will have the smoke-free home he's always wanted, so everyone can be happy again.

...I specifically made the comment "Yeah, I smoke and, all together now, I'm gonna quit for good someday" or words to that affect. You can look it up!

You are the first devout smoker I ever met. Every single other one says the same thing; They wish they would/could or at least think they should quit. Even Dahlgren for crying out loud.

It is religion with you and that's you business. I still argue for your right to be able to waltz into a bar and light it up and I've always appreciated that you limit where you smoke in the house. And, for good measure, there are times I miss smoking, but I can not ever make the argument that smoking made my life better. I can state plainly that quitting has.

 

[Bustem' Down]

So you agree there are health consequences to the non-smoker.

There are health consequenses for the non drinker, Someone who doesn't have an STD, or pedestrians, but we don't ban alcohol, unprotected sex, and driving.

 

[PsyOps]

No, because the amount of second hand smoke affecting you is small compared to other pollutants in the air. That said, even if you made smoking illegal, you still wouldn't have smoke free air. There's auto exhaust, power plants, refineries, trains ships, etc, etc.

In today’s world we need transportation, we need electricity, we need our refineries to produce our fuels, trains, etc… Hardly a comparison to that all-important smoke. You certainly need that.

 

[Larry Gude]

Absolutely...

So you agree there are health consequences to the non-smoker.

...and then quantify them and then take appropriate action.

Poor diet kills FAR more Americans and hurts the health of FAR more Americans than smoking does.

Same for alcohol.

So, what gets the legislative action, bad food? Booze? No. Once again, the minority suffers in this country and that is the one goddamn thing we supposedly all agree our Constitution is for; protection from the tyranny of the majority.

People have a right to make and sell cigarettes. People have a right to buy and smoke them. People have a right to allow or not allow smoking on their property.

 

[Kyle]

There are health consequenses for the non drinker, Someone who doesn't have an STD, or pedestrians, but we don't ban alcohol, unprotected sex, and driving.

.... Can't wait to hear Maryland Legislators rail about the dangers of Second-hand Syphilus.

 

[Bustem' Down]

In today’s world we need transportation, we need electricity, we need our refineries to produce our fuels, trains, etc… Hardly a comparison to that all-important smoke. You certainly need that.

So why not support more stringent legislation on auto emmisions? Why only tobacco?

 

[PsyOps]

There are health consequenses for the non drinker, Someone who doesn't have an STD, or pedestrians, but we don't ban alcohol, unprotected sex, and driving.

Once again, you need to pay attention. I am not proposing a ban on smoking. I am primarily arguing that it is just as much my right to breathe smoke-free air as it is a smoker's right to smoke. I am providing the non-smoker's argument. But I understand you need your smoke. I don't need my smoke-free air (yeah, yeah, I know, all the cars and factories and refineries...).

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned second hand farts?

 

[Daffy]

...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.

Not so...they ARE around until they are 80 or 90. Suffering from emphysema and other cronic lung diseases. Teathered to oxygen tanks and fighting for every breath.

 

[PsyOps]

So why not support more stringent legislation on auto emmisions? Why only tobacco?

Through consumer pressure car makers should be forced to make more hybrids or alternative (low-emissions) fueled cars. The government should not be forcing private companies what products to make. We, as a collective consumer, should be demanding it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Because...

So why not support more stringent legislation on auto emmisions? Why only tobacco?

...this is what we do:

So, what gets the legislative action, bad food? Booze? No. Once again, the minority suffers in this country and that is the one goddamn thing we supposedly all agree our Constitution is for; protection from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[PsyOps]

That's not the argument. The argument is the right to completely remove the choices of others.

That's your argument. Well, actually that's part of my argument, but not from the standpoint of who has the right but rather, why do smokers feel they have the right but non-smokers shouldn't.

 

[mAlice]

Through consumer pressure car makers should be forced to make more hybrids or alternative (low-emissions) fueled cars. The government should not be forcing private companies what products to make. We, as a collective consumer, should be demanding it.

The government shouldn't dictate what type of automobile is made? But they should dictate what type of customer a bar opwner chooses to cater to? Please explain.

 

[vraiblonde]

I can not ever make the argument that smoking made my life better

Really? And I can make the argument that, because you were a smoker, your general health has improved a great deal, including your dental health. In fact, being a smoker (back when I was looking for one) may have saved your very life, Mr. Apnea.

 

[smoothmarine187]

They should just cram all of the smokers into a little smoke filled room like that do at the Airport, or just make them smoke outside. I have been in bars where the smoke is so bad that it makes my eyes burn.

 

[Larry Gude]

I disagree...

Through consumer pressure car makers should be forced to make more hybrids or alternative (low-emissions) fueled cars. The government should not be forcing private companies what products to make. We, as a collective consumer, should be demanding it.

...there is a reasonable argument to be made that government can be used to coerce business into working on an issue; lower emission vehicles even though consumers don't much care. Regulation has a place. We are better off with lower sulfur emissions. We're better off without leaded gas. We're better of with food inspection standards.

The smoking ban simply goes to, way to far.

 

[mAlice]

That's your argument. Well, actually that's part of my argument, but not from the standpoint of who has the right but rather, why do smokers feel they have the right but non-smokers shouldn't.

We never said you shouldn't have a right to a smoke free environmnet. Non smokers now hold all the cards. It wasn't good enough that you had to make a choice to go to a non smoking establishment. You had to go one step further and make sure that smokers no longer had a choice at all.

 

[Kyle]

They should just cram all of the smokers into a little smoke filled room like that do at the Airport, or just make them smoke outside. I have been in bars where the smoke is so bad that it makes my eyes burn.

Did you stay?

 

[Larry Gude]

As I read that...

Really? And I can make the argument that, because you were a smoker, your general health has improved a great deal, including your dental health. In fact, being a smoker (back when I was looking for one) may have saved your very life, Mr. Apnea.

...you're saying my life improved since I quit. Yes?