Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
First Cellphones, Now Smokes
Topic Started: Jan 9 2007, 09:21 AM (1,074 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 03:12 PM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 01:41 PM
John, that's not even a valid argument. Driving while intoxicated is something that carries a very real risk of flat-out killing, INSTANTLY, passengers, drivers, and people who are hit by the drunken driver. That's like saying, "Why is it illegal to have your very own nuclear bomb?"

Whatever.... Your argument, in this case, is a little asinine, IMO.

When DUI laws were tightened up, there was resistance from people who claimed that this was a nanny state mentality, and that there should be less intrusion into people's lives. That is asinine.

Damn.

All these Nancy Boys coming from Europe (and Canada,) telling us American's how to live our lives. Next thing you know it's going to be mandatory that guys cary purses. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
John, you know it's not the same, for exactly the reasons that I outlined. It's almost a form of "Godwin's Law." As such, it's over and I refuse to discuss it any further with you. :shrug:



I agree that the rights and freedoms of the society as a whole, should take precedence over the rights and freedoms of the individuals.

This is why, when I was a smoker, I had no problem with smoking being relegated to the outdoors, and for smokers being required to stay more than 25' from the entrance to buildings. I think this is reasonable.

To regulate what I can or cannot do in my own personal vehicle, or out in the middle of a parking lot where I'm not harming a single other soul, is just going too far.

This would be like saying, "We're not outlawing liquor, but going to a bar is no longer legal because it could lead to drunken driving. Drinking a beer in your home, if you have children, is no longer legal because your children could get into your beer, and it also sets a bad example."
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:18 PM
John, you know it's not the same, for exactly the reasons that I outlined. It's almost a form of "Godwin's Law." :no:


I agree that the rights and freedoms of the society as a whole, should take precedence over the rights and freedoms of the individuals.

This is why, when I was a smoker, I had no problem with smoking being relegated to the outdoors, and for smokers being required to stay more than 25' from the entrance to buildings. I think this is reasonable.

To regulate what I can or cannot do in my own personal vehicle, or out in the middle of a parking lot where I'm not harming a single other soul, is just going too far.

This would be like saying, "We're not outlawing liquor, but going to a bar is no longer legal because it could lead to drunken driving. Drinking a beer in your home, if you have children, is no longer legal because your children could get into your beer, and it sets a bad example."

I don't care what people do in their vehicles on their own. I do care if there are children, and more specifically my children, in the car with them. This issue is not unrelated to drink-driving. The harm caused by DUI is more immediate, and extensive, but that caused by passive smoking is very real.

I don't want smoking legislated out of existence, but I have to say I find pubs and restaurants a whole lot nicer since they've stopped allowing smoking in them. Now, if we could just find a way of banning TV in pubs....
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 11:17 AM
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 03:12 PM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 01:41 PM
John, that's not even a valid argument. Driving while intoxicated is something that carries a very real risk of flat-out killing, INSTANTLY, passengers, drivers, and people who are hit by the drunken driver. That's like saying, "Why is it illegal to have your very own nuclear bomb?"

Whatever.... Your argument, in this case, is a little asinine, IMO.

When DUI laws were tightened up, there was resistance from people who claimed that this was a nanny state mentality, and that there should be less intrusion into people's lives. That is asinine.

Damn.

All these Nancy Boys coming from Europe (and Canada,) telling us American's how to live our lives. Next thing you know it's going to be mandatory that guys cary purses. :lol:

Actually Tom the first mandatory seat belt laws in North America originated in the US. In fact in the nancy state known as Texas. Same with anti-smoking bylaws. All originated in the US before being adopted in Canada and from what I can tell, Europe.

Face the facts, big talking nancy Yanks, like people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones- or for that matter, undress. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 02:17 PM

Damn.

All these Nancy Boys coming from Europe (and Canada,) telling us American's how to live our lives.  Next thing you know it's going to be mandatory that guys cary purses. :lol:

I'm not from Europe, I'm from England. We set your funny country up in the first place, and we have a vested interest in keeping you safe for the next time we need to borrow some money. :lol:

Edit - and AC's right - all this anti-lead in petrol, anti-smoking, hippy crap came from America.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
John, I'll keep it very simple: I have NO problem with the concept of not smoking around kids. I DO have a problem with it being LEGISLATED. See? I don't suppose this is getting through to you, is it? :yelling: :no:

Oh well... :shrug: I tried. I honestly tried.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:05 PM
You are certainly welcome to your OPINION, Quirt. But don't go foisting it off as fact, as if you expect people to take it as anything more than your opinion, and then waste time debating it with you. *shrug*

I don't think the issue of whether secondhand smoke is harmful to children is an opinion, Frank. It's a scientifically demonstrated fact, insofar as it's possible to call anything a fact. I gave you many of the cites, and that was only from a five-minute search.

It's been proven to the satisfaction of the Surgeon General. It's been proven to the satisfaction of the World Health Organization.

If you still dispute whether it's a "fact" or not .... I don't mean this to sound insulting, but it's your right to believe what you want to believe, I just don't have to take it seriously.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Still, male purses came from Europe. :)

Nothing wrong with seat belts, or anti-lead gas or most of the other things on your laundry list. But the idea of LEGISLATING those thing as a mandatory part of life is a Socialistic European notion.

And I'm not from America--I'm from New York.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:32 PM
John, I'll keep it very simple: I have NO problem with the concept of not smoking around kids. I DO have a problem with it being LEGISLATED. See? I don't suppose this is getting through to you, is it? :yelling: :no:

Oh well... :shrug: I tried. I honestly tried.

If you have a problem with it being legislated, then you don't have a problem with people who choose to smoke around kids.

Your kids, for example. Even if you choose not to smoke around them, others might.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
No. That would be faulty logic, Quirt.

It means that I am against it being legislated. That's ALL it means, for that's ALL that I've said. Don't go putting words in my mouth or ascribing things to me that I have not stated, because "assume" makes an ass out of "u" and "me."
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 11:34 AM
And I'm not from America--I'm from New York.

Exactly, what I said. At heart, you're a big takin' nancy Yank.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:38 PM
No. That would be faulty logic, Quirt.

It means that I am against it being legislated. That's ALL it means, for that's ALL that I've said. Don't go putting words in my mouth or ascribing things to me that I have not stated, because "assume" makes an ass out of "u" and "me."

Then please explain. You have a problem with it being legislated. Do you have a problem with people choosing to smoke around kids? Yes or no.

If the answer is yes, how do you propose to address that problem, absent legislation?

If the answer is no, do you have a problem with child endangerment laws in your own home? Should you be allowed to play with loaded firearms or play with dynamite around children, should you be allowed to whip them with a wire hanger or beat them with a baseball bat, should you be allowed to let them jump off the roof pretending to be Superman? If you agree that it's acceptable to legislate against those behaviors, why not cigarette smoke?

It's one or the other. Either you have a problem with people smoking around kids, or you don't. Logic, as you say. And, whichever choice you make, there are consequences to that choice.

Most people who object to this sort of legislation attempt to finesse the problem by claiming that the science of the danger of secondhand smoke is unproven. That, I think, is a refusal to recognize reality, because it would lead to unpleasant logical consequences.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 02:34 PM
Nothing wrong with seat belts, or anti-lead gas or most of the other things on your laundry list. But the idea of LEGISLATING those thing as a mandatory part of life is a Socialistic European notion.

We always used to blame California, which to me is the very epitome of everthing that America aspires to be.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
TomK,
Quote:
 
FWIW my parents smoked in the house, in the car, all around me (pre and slightly post knowing it was a bad thing,) I'm still living.


Yeah, but you've got some years left on you. You have plenty of time to contract emphysema, so do I. Hopefully that won't happen.

When my father passed away last March he had suffered from emphysema. According to my brother it was causing him to hullinate because his brain wasn't getting enough oxygen. My father had smoked for 40 years. I remember when he quit. It's to his credit that he quit when he did.

I remember the smell of cigarette butts in the toilet bowl, the wafts of smoke blowing over my dinner plate. Yuck. I wouldn't expose my children to that stuff.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 03:53 PM
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 02:34 PM
Nothing wrong with seat belts, or anti-lead gas or most of the other things on your laundry list.  But the idea of LEGISLATING those thing as a mandatory part of life is a Socialistic European notion.

We always used to blame California, which to me is the very epitome of everthing that America aspires to be.

High taxes and burning houses? :biggrin:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
From the article:
Quote:
 
Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.


Yeah right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:32 PM
John, I'll keep it very simple: I have NO problem with the concept of not smoking around kids. I DO have a problem with it being LEGISLATED. See? I don't suppose this is getting through to you, is it? :yelling: :no:

Oh well... :shrug: I tried. I honestly tried.

I fully understand. Even my feeble powers of comprehension managed to figure out what you were saying. I just didn't happen to agree with you. In particular, your statement that my comparison between drink-driving and passive smoking was asinine struck me as shallow.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 11:53 AM
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 02:34 PM
Nothing wrong with seat belts, or anti-lead gas or most of the other things on your laundry list.  But the idea of LEGISLATING those thing as a mandatory part of life is a Socialistic European notion.

We always used to blame California, which to me is the very epitome of everthing that America aspires to be.

Funny, we also blamed California too when all that "progressive" and politically correct legislation was introduced and passed up here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Bernard
Jan 9 2007, 03:54 PM
TomK,
Quote:
 
FWIW my parents smoked in the house, in the car, all around me (pre and slightly post knowing it was a bad thing,) I'm still living.


Yeah, but you've got some years left on you. You have plenty of time to contract emphysema, so do I. Hopefully that won't happen.

When my father passed away last March he had suffered from emphysema. According to my brother it was causing him to hullinate because his brain wasn't getting enough oxygen. My father had smoked for 40 years. I remember when he quit. It's to his credit that he quit when he did.

I remember the smell of cigarette butts in the toilet bowl, the wafts of smoke blowing over my dinner plate. Yuck. I wouldn't expose my children to that stuff.

And my mom died of it, too. She didn't know smoking was bad for her until later on and when she learned of it--she couldn't stop. My father went cold turkey.

It's wrong, it's bad--but we should educate--not legislate. Enough with the laws for every part of our lives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 11:57 AM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:32 PM
John, I'll keep it very simple: I have NO problem with the concept of not smoking around kids. I DO have a problem with it being LEGISLATED. See? I don't suppose this is getting through to you, is it?  :yelling:  :no:

Oh well...  :shrug: I tried. I honestly tried.

I fully understand. Even my feeble powers of comprehension managed to figure out what you were saying. I just didn't happen to agree with you. In particular, your statement that my comparison between drink-driving and passive smoking was asinine struck me as shallow.

Isn't drunk (blood alcohol .08% or greater) or impaired driving a felony in the US?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Okay. Fine. I'm a shallow asshole and I should just sit back and toe the party line, and not bother anyone with thoughts about over-legislation, government interfering entirely too much with our personal lives, the huge number of laws being enacted every month and year, and how my thoughts on personal responsibility make me a f*cking dinosaur an hopelessly out of fashion.

Big f*cking deal.

I've got news for you: The more laws the government enacts and the more the government has their hands right in your personal life, the more of a SUBJECT you become, and the less of a citizen you are. Freedom and personal, individual responsibility for one's actions go hand in hand.

I am against the legislation of smoking in vehicles, however, as a responsible and reasonable adult, I choose not to do it around my child. If my child is going somewhere where adults will be smoking in an enclosed environment and I am concerned about it, then I don't have to allow my child to go to that place, or else I can take it up with the adult who chooses to light up in such a venue.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 02:59 PM
It's wrong, it's bad--but we should educate--not legislate. Enough with the laws for every part of our lives.

I actually agree with that, my only real problem is that when children are involved, we shouldn't have to rely on Darwinism to solve the problem.

There's a very good argument for making smoking illegal during pregnancy, for example, since it isn't the active smoker who suffers.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Jan 9 2007, 04:02 PM
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 11:57 AM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:32 PM
John, I'll keep it very simple: I have NO problem with the concept of not smoking around kids. I DO have a problem with it being LEGISLATED. See? I don't suppose this is getting through to you, is it?  :yelling:  :no:

Oh well...  :shrug: I tried. I honestly tried.

I fully understand. Even my feeble powers of comprehension managed to figure out what you were saying. I just didn't happen to agree with you. In particular, your statement that my comparison between drink-driving and passive smoking was asinine struck me as shallow.

Isn't drunk (blood alcohol .08% or greater) or impaired driving a felony in the US?

Keep at it Frank--these Queen's toe kissing Nancy boys will try to double team you every time. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
It's crazy.... I know I'm typing in English, and I feel like my points aren't that difficult to comprehend. Pffft....WhatEVER. This is exactly why, 90% of the time, I stay out of these sorts of discussions. :no:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
AlbertaCrude
Jan 9 2007, 03:02 PM
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 11:57 AM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:32 PM
John, I'll keep it very simple: I have NO problem with the concept of not smoking around kids. I DO have a problem with it being LEGISLATED. See? I don't suppose this is getting through to you, is it?  :yelling:  :no:

Oh well...  :shrug: I tried. I honestly tried.

I fully understand. Even my feeble powers of comprehension managed to figure out what you were saying. I just didn't happen to agree with you. In particular, your statement that my comparison between drink-driving and passive smoking was asinine struck me as shallow.

Isn't drunk (blood alcohol .08% or greater) or impaired driving a felony in the US?

Be fair, that's about 6 'pints' of the watered down gnats-pee they call beer.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply