The Cellar - The slippery slope

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The slippery slope (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11031)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?

Right on. I'm looking forward to getting these babies banned, too. I can't stand it when I'm outside and forced to inhale their toxins simply for their pleasure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

Because a bar or restaurant - a privately owned facility - is a public establshment. Can they fill their bar with combustible foam on the walls and light off fireworks? You think that also is legal or acceptable?

There is nothing acceptable about a toxic drug addict blowing his fumes in another's face. Nothing. The 'slam dunk' now makes it that obvious.

When you light up, do you first ask everyone in the building, individually, for permission? Why not? They must consume your toxins? Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?

People sometimes are so responsible as to ask. I put them downwind. But that is rare from the drug addicts who smoke - and think it is their right to do so anywhere. After fifty plus years of being pushed around and driven out by drug addicts, I have had enough from their intolerance.

As a smoker, remember, you are endorsing an industry that even had a program ongoing to addict five year olds to nicotene. Sort of raised a question of morality. After logically deciding that smoking is not dangerous, did you then apply moral concepts to that conclusion and say addicting five year old is also acceptable?

Your example has nothing to do with this argument. Again, I am not addicted to tobacco, nor are most that I associate with.
Again, those who run BBQ establishments, nail salons, or any other business with any other type of fume or smoke does not need to ask; because, as long as they meet OSHA air standards, it is their choice and the public decides to shop there or not.
I have always found it very humorous that the antis make it sound as if they have no choice but to be in an establishment, as if they did not know people smoke there or not... very silly. Also, just because I smoke a pipe and cigars does not mean I agree with all tobacco companies tactics any more than I agree with what Coke and Pepsi does with stealing water and polluting from third world nations, GM and Ford with economic manipulations with the same and as an American and patriot, supporting all this nation does. Just dumb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

... does not mean I agree with all tobacco companies tactics any more than I agree with what Coke and Pepsi does with stealing water and polluting from third world nations, GM and Ford with economic manipulations with the same and as an American and patriot, supporting all this nation does. Just dumb.

Which is all irrelevant. "The times they are a changing." 'Slam dunk' facts now confront those who smoke in the face of others - with contempt for others. You want to smoke? Same concepts that ban taking shits in public. It's called simple human respect for others that required laws only because offenders have contempt for other's health. 'Slam dunk' from the Surgeon General is a final blow. You want to run a restaurant that permits smoking? Then make it a private club not open to the public. Then go ahead and put flammable foam on the walls and light up fire works - which is also dangerous and unacceptable in a public establishment - privately or publically owned. There is not reason for non-smokers to be tolerant of drug addicts when those drug addicts are so intolerant of all others.

Ban smoking in all public establishments and no one's rights are violated. None. No one.

Don't be tolerant, you are free not to be, just like I don't like the smell of stores that have tons of potpourri and nail salons... I just don't go in there, even though that is what those people do on their private property and want in their shops.
I have brains enough to do that without being so egomaniacal that I feel that I have to force everyone to do what I like, I guess some don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

... I don't like the smell of stores that have tons of potpourri and nail salons... I just don't go in there, even though that is what those people do on their private property and want in their shops.

"I don't like" is not relevant. We are talking about attacks to healthy people by intolerant drug addicts. It's not about 'what I like'. It’s about assault. Just like urinating and defecating on public streets is considered an assault on the public's health.

Okay then, tw, take me for example. I get AWFUL migranes from certain smells, sometimes. The nearly visible cloud of perfume and cologne that surrounds the beauty section of most department stores is absolutely awful to me. But do I say that nobody should be allowed to sell or even wear perfume because the smell gives me excruciating headaches? No, I just shop somewhere else or avoid that section of the store.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

But are those perfumes killing you? No. Big difference. 'Slam dunk' Those cigarette addicts are attacking your body. Not just headaches. It is an attack of your health.

Notice the minute one of those perfumes puts out a toxic odor, that perfume must be immediately eliminated. It's not about what you 'feel'. Its about science and logic. Cigarette smoke is an attack not on how you 'feel'. It is an attack on the public health.

So migranes are less harmful to me than a whiff of smoke?

I lived in Beijing, where the air was more smoke than not, for three years. I dont have lung cancer. I feel no ill effects of the smoke. If three years of breathing it almost constantly didnt hurt me, but two seconds sniffing concentrated perfume gives me a blinding migrane, I'd personally say the perfume is more of a threat to me.

No shit... I hate it when someone sprays that crap on and gets into an elevator. So rude.
Let's outlaw it!!! LOL... sound familiar? "Slam dunk" dur.
The acetone in a nail salon is toxic as are cooking fumes, but no one wants to outlaw those establishments... as they should not.
Because we believe in freedom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

But we are talking about private property, now aren't we?
Again, not all who smoke are addicted, are you having trouble reading this? Seems like you are the one on drugs.

Now I've said this before, but before tw flips out at me for it, I'm going to pre-emptively defend myself (LYK O NO U PREMTVLY DEFNDED U R LYK MENTL MIGET!!!one!1!eleven). I am personally against smoking in general, and if someone was smoking around me I would ask them to stop, probably. I would be one of the people who goes the the OTHER restaurant. But I completely support the right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property.

As would I.
I don't like smoke around my food and don't like cigarette smoke.
But, I like being a fascist much less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

I would be one of the people who goes the the OTHER restaurant. But I completely support the right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property.

In some towns, there is no other restaurant. They all condone smoking. The other restaurant means going to NY or NJ.

Meanwhile, I believe everyone agrees with this: right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property. Not to be confused with a privately owned public establishment.

By the argument being made public nudity should also be legal. Damned be those who don't want to look at certain parts of peoples bodies! After all, it's that person's body not yours and you can choose not to look.

And the fault in the logic about the perfume example is that while both perfume and cigarette smoke extend beyond the user of the product, the vast majority of people exposed to perfume suffer no ill health effects from such exposure. In contrast, the vast majority of people exposed to cigarette smoke do suffer ill health effects.

It's a public health issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

By the argument being made public nudity should also be legal.

You mean this is illegal?
Spencer Tunick in Switzerland