Nonsmokers shouldn’t have a right to be offended if they enter a bar that has a “Smoking Inside” sign up in the windowand there are people smoking.

I fully agree with this; patrons are making the informed decision to enter a bar that allows smoking.

What someone does to their own body in the privacy of their own homes, where they are explicitly guaranteed of privacy, is their own business.

I also fully agree with this.  The only exceptions I would make is when those activities infringe upon the neighbors’ ability to enjoy their privacy; loud noise, noxious smells, that sort of thing.

MisterMook; Are you also arguing that the OSHA and other workplace laws that protect workers’ health and safety should be repealed?  Is it OK for workplaces to stop providing respirators to workers?  Is it OK for workplaces to expose their employees to toxic vapors?

Of course it’s ok. We allow it all the time, bearing in mind that you can’t require folks to work for you and we’re not talking about something that’s so toxic (except in some people’s minds) as cyanide gas or something. Second hand smoke won’t kill you tomorrow, or even the day after, it takes prolonged exposure and that makes it a risk that people should be allowed to assume and that businesses should be allowed to assume and that customers should be allowed to assume.

If we were talking about people’s rights to blow their brains out at “Shoot yourself in the eye” bar or something, then I could understand some people’s reticence about saying that it’s ok. But we let people work in all sorts of shitty, unsafe conditions as long as they’re well-insured and compensated for the nasty business they’re involved in and I just don’t see where allowing smoking establishments is somehow more dangerous than letting people be lion tamers or rattlesnake wranglers.

MisterMook: how you argue that position is beyond me.  Not only would many in the government disagree with you, but so do 30 to 40 years of court cases.  Business have a right to provide employees a safe working environment because we care about those that work to bring up our GNP.  But that aside if employees can reasonably provide a safe work environment it makes no sense not to.  Think financial reasons.

Unless I’m missing something, employers must provide a safe working environment within reasonable means.  So rock grinding companies cannot really do much for their employees because the job is inherently dangerous.  But State Farm doesn’t have to install asbestos in their new building.  That is a choice they can make.

Why you would think it would be ok to allow State Farm to expose their employees to asbestos, when all the employees do is sit in cubes and work on the computer all day, is beyond me.

Having watched a man die from silicosis that he got doing hard rock drilling, I’d say it’s well within the boundaries of reason for the company and the law to require safety equipment like breathing apparatus.

During the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, you were fired on the first offense if you were caught working not tied off, or without a helmet.  Even in inherently dangerous jobs, no sense letting risk be greater than necessary.  And individuals are often poor judges of risk.  “It can’t happen to me” is inborn, I think.

True True.  What I was referring to was the fact that a rock grinder couldn’t sue his company for damages to his arms because he has carpal tunnel.  That risk is assumed when taking the job, and there is not a whole lot the company can do minimize this except give breaks and rotate job functions (if possible).

That analogy presumes someone has a right to be in a restaurant, when in fact it is a privilege bestowed by the restaurant owner.  To come into someone else’s establishment (as the government or a citizen) and demand that everyone must extinguish their cigarettes for your comfort (or health) is completely unreasonable.  The statement would be better interpreted as “My right to smoke in my space is unlimited.  Your obligation is to stay out of my space if you don’t like my smoke.” I’m of course talking about buildings and rooms here, not space as in personal space (smoke does drift) or different seats on the bus.  Nor would this apply to public areas that people do have a right to be in, such as courthouses, police stations, etc.

However, the issue of workers is completely different from that of customers.  We could argue that no people are forced to work anywhere, but in some areas there aren’t a lot of choices.  In this country we’ve banned sweatshops, asbestos insulation and child labor because the dangers are severe enough that we don’t want anyone exposed to them.  There are people (I promise) who have no problems working in a smoke-filled bar, who don’t care about the health risks--either due to ignorance or their willing participation in that life-long suicide mentioned by someone else earlier.  However, there are also people who don’t necessarily want to work in those conditions, but are desperate enough to take a job anywhere.

Well said Thriceberg.

And I disagree, because we allow people do all sorts of crazy shit with enough insurance and waivers that makes “smoking in bars” look pretty tame by comparison. I don’t mind allowing business owners to call the cops on smokers who are smoking on his property without permission. I DO mind nonsmokers coming into a business where smoking IS allowed and declaring that they have a right to dictate how that business is run.

If people have the right to work in chemical plants, as longshoremen, as police officers, firemen, soldiers, and whatever else you’ve got going on then it’s absolutely not the environment which dictates the safety zone by which businesses may operate. You want to dictate the terms by which safety measures should be implemented to lessen the impact of suboptimally safe working conditions? Go ahead. Just don’t tell anyone that they can’t cater to a market just because you personally disapprove of it.

Seriously, it’s dangerously close to the laws which say you can’t have strip clubs too close to churches, or sell booze on Sunday, or curse on any channel on television, or any of the other things that otherwise reasonable people come to their senses about and say “Go ahead and live your life like you want to live it.” Do you have a problem with the idiots like the Crocodile Hunter? Parachutists? Bus drivers in Baghdad?

Just because you can make yourself available to be endangered doesn’t mean it’s someone else’s fault, especially if you give people the means to illustrate and legally perform separation from the dangerous activity. I repeat, it’s not as if there couldn’t be a compromise: It’s that nonsmoking activists are performing a religious inquisition without the holy texts. No compromise is sought because they’re doing Good Works Which Shall Not Be Questioned.

As it turns out MisterMook you and I are on the same page.

The “I am making no claims” defense; except you are (see below).

Am I making any claims about parenting? I would love for you to point them out. Please quote me on what ever claim about parenting that you continue to ramble on about.

In fact I posted this in my last post. Below.

I was not pointing out that my parents either did or did not have a significant role in my child hood development. Nor was I suggesting that parenting is or is not a neccassaty.

I did that because you seemed confused. As though someone here was debating about parenting, specifically you seem to think that I am. But I posted the above to help you out. I am sorry if I wasn’t clear enough on the issue.

You did writesome phenominal matterial about parenting in your last post. But who are you debating with? What is it in responce too? I, again, re read this entire thread. I found no posts that either relate to your parenting issue nor did find any posts that seem to be ingaging you in your parenting issue. It reads as though you believe someone who is either reading this forum or posted in this forum is making an argument against the effects of parenting. You obviously have made great points that support the effects of parenting. I applaud your efforts in your debate. But must ask who you are debating with?

I figured what I was pointing out was obvious - apparently it needed further explanation.

I have taken maybe five or six psyc classes in college before I fell in love with the fire service. Admittedly none of them where high level classes. However, NOWHERE in any of those classes was there ANYTHING to suggest the things you were “pointing out” where obvious. It has been some years and perhaps there is newer material out. But I would love to see any sources you could drum up that would suggest your crack “analysis” was really just pointing out the obvious.

See, the thing is, you posted it as a contrast to my position. You said, here, let me explain, and you tabled a story of your childhood as an explanation. That goes from being mere storytelling to making material claims about our universe in some form or other. If my response was not to be taken seriously, then neither was your explanation.

LOL you take your “analysis” far to seriously. As much as I find the humor in this, I will try to clearify the issue for you.

It is not at all that your responce was not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, I was really looking forward to some fun, interesting, and thought provoking debate.
However, the responce that you gave, did not allow for any of those things. Based on the responce you gave, after it was read. It was then easy deemed as laughable.
You see, it is the ridiculousness of you anylisis. Do you really believe that you have the ablity to anylis someones childhood development based on three storys given over the internet? It truelly is laughable if you do. I mean seriously, I doubt even you can seriously say that you believe you have that ablity. Then the funny part is not only did you procede to “anylis” but the conclusions you wrote were a gas.

Listen, I think it would be best for everybody if you and I let this go. You have won so to speak. As I wrote earlier that I did not want to veer from the topic at hand; Smoking, Quiting smoking, and government evolvment. Yet here we are typing whole posts that have nothing to do with the topic on hand. I too share the blame as willing followed you down this path. Besides this is not enjoyable. Perhaps it is just your style of “debate” but I feel instead of ingaging in some though provoking discussion. I am defending myself from a mudslinging fight.

Warm thoughts with you patness.

I’ve been a light smoker since I was 16, and I think I’m genuinely that rare person who smokes but isn’t addicted, or is only very slightly addicted. I’ve smoked daily at times, but only for very brief periods, and never more than an average of a few cigarettes a day. I’ll often go months without a cigarette without even realizing it, then maybe smoke a pack or two in a week, then go several more weeks without a smoke.

For the most part, I only smoke when I’m around smoke. For some reason, I cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke unless I am smoking myself, so if I’m in a smoking bar, I have to light up. Also, I started smoking and drinking at exactly the same time (Halloween 1998, fyi), so those activities naturally go together in my mind. It seems weird to be at a party and not step outside occasionally to smoke and talk, and indeed I’ve made many friends this way. It’s this social aspect that I suspect will keep me from ever quitting completely.

It does get easier as fewer and fewer bars allow smoking though, and as more of my friends quit. When I go out in New York, I don’t even think about cigarettes, whereas I smoke like crazy when I go out in Baltimore.

Am I making any claims about parenting? I would love for you to point them out.

WV, I can’t say “Angels interfere with my computer program” because even if the angels in question were ‘supernatural’ or somesuch, that makes a claim about our universe that says that it is or contains a structure which allows interference from a certain set of ‘supernatural’ things. All claims relevant to a material topic are material claims. It’s just a matter of extension.

Regarding the constant mockery of my “analysis”. Is it a distance factor you’re mocking? That I haven’t spent weeks with you on the couch? All it says is you’re not my client and I’m not your therapist (Unfortunately, it also says I don’t own a fine leather couch). While you’re at it, you can laugh off statistics, because they have no detailed relationship with their subjects either. “Parenting has an effect on the child which the child can’t control” is established; I don’t even have to know you exist.

Your claims were that everyone is free to choose ______, that they can choose for society’s benefit, and that nobody has a right to decide who is competent or not. They are claims about people, not smoking. Yet, there are many cases where the choices aren’t free, but compelled; compelled choices are not necessarily for society’s best interests; the right to decide competency does not exist, and cannot be used as a basis for judgement. I draw on parenting because it shows that those claims are unreal. PR was mentioned before: cigarette companies advert because they compel; people are more likely to choose to smoke when ads run. Bottom line: your claims just don’t work, for parenting or smoking.

I dunno what arguments are like where you come from; for me this is standard fare. You make a claim, you defend it from any criticism, and, succeed or fail, everyone learns something. I’ve made counterpoints, called you on when you said I was being irrational, illogical, or invalid, that I was drawing assumptions from your statements, that my “analysis” was pointless. I had to writea lot to address it. I even tried to clarify a statement-by-statement reasoning. I recieved mockery in turn.

I’m curious to know what debate is like for you, but that’s the extent of my desire to further our exchange.

Bottom line: your claims just don’t work, for parenting or smoking.

Well luckly for me I’ve made no claims on parenting. As far as smoking my Ideas do work, as they are still in use most of the country. Though it appears a change my be on the horizon. As I typed earlier their have been whole counties that have made smoking illegal.

I dunno what arguments are like where you come from;

I can honestly say I haven’t had an argument seen I was a teenager. Arguments seem to incite an emotional investment, that ppl just aren’t willing to let go of. I find ppl just spin thier wheels till they’re blue in the face.

for me this is standard fare.

clearly.

I recieved mockery in turn.

Patness. I do not mock you as a person. But your “analysis” had no reasoning or logic. You seemed to take it very seriously, that is very funny to me. Forgive me. I truely belive you are probably an upstanding person you might just get to worked up to make through points. Though I had no evolvment in your parenting debate you seemed to be quite reasoned in it and I did enjoy reading it.

I’m curious to know what debate is like for you, but that’s the extent of my desire to further our exchange.

Debate for me is mostly identical to your college debate team. It typically uses the point - counterpoint model. If you have the means I highly suggest going to a college debate just to check it out, for fun. Though I haven’t actually been on the team for years now. I still go from time to time (I know I am a geek in that fasion.) At the last one I attended they covered if prostition should be legal here in Illinois. It was quite stimulating.

I sometimes have dissagreements with my significant other. But never to the point of raised voice, snide comments, malice, or anything that a typical argument appears to have.

Again Patness
Warm thoughts with you.

Wow, debating anything with WV is like debating with an arrogant child ...

Well luckly for me I’ve made no claims on parenting.

You are missing the point here.

WV said:

I believe society is smart enough to make decisions for themselves.

and said:

It is not mine or anybodies right to decide who can and who can’t make thier own competent choices.

(scroll up about two-thirds the way to find where these statements were made)

So based on these two claims of yours people should be completely free to make their own choices and nothing should interfere with this. But as Patness pointed out this argument of yours (which is bolded) fails on the issue of parenting.  We know we are not talking about parenting as an issue, but parenting is an example of why your argument is flawed.

This is just one example of an issue that should have been cleared up a long time ago, there are plenty of other examples people have given as to why your argument is flawed WV.  And you just fail to acknowledge them.

So based on these two claims of yours people should be completely free to make their own choices and nothing should interfere with this. But as Patness pointed out this argument of yours (which is bolded) fails on the issue of parenting.  We know we are not talking about parenting as an issue, but parenting is an example of why your argument is flawed

Webs. As, I pointed out much earlier, that is out of context of the conversation being had. I do understand both you and Patness on your reach for a connection there. However, Based on the context of the conversation, it is not realivent. So to get involved in Patnesses debate on parenting, then I too would just really wonder further of topic. I have respect for Patness and think he is doing a fine job covering the parenting issue.

What Webs, Pat, and Consi said.

Unsubscribing…

(completely ignoring issue of public smoking bans because it’s been pretty well covered donchyathink)

I wonder if the quality of tobacco is a factor in addiction.  Most cigarettes are really crummy stuff and I have heard that tobacco companies spike them to a certain nicotine content.  In Tennessee I smoked quite a bit but got spoiled by the really good tobacco I could buy just down the street from my apartment.  Since moving to Illinois, I’ve pretty much lost interest but for a cigar once in a while - most available stuff seems kind of flat.

I wonder if the quality of tobacco is a factor in addiction.

I can only speak for myself, but this was certainly the case for my addictions. Even though my brand of choice was Marlboro Lights, there were times when I found myself considerably addicted to American Spirits simply because they were so damn good. Parliaments, on the other hand, did absolutely nothing for me and I was able to get relinquish those easily.

I am comming in late here, (4 day weekend at the cabin).  My G/F-wife quit smoking Dec 1. (Nov 1 with some lapses) after smoking for 20 years.  After my daughter went through hodgekins disease last year F decided she needed to do something as there is little you can do when your step-child has cancer.  She quit smoking and joined the The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society’s Team In Training.  Team in training provides mentors and trainers to help you walk or run a 1/2 or full marathon.  their sponsors get you to and put you up at one of many marathons in North America.
The member is then expected to fundraise for the L&L society.  F will be running in Anchorage, Alaska the third week of June.  We also bought Gym memeberships and have been training together 3-4 times a week (the team runs together sunday mornings).  Full on lifestyle change!

http://www.active.com/donate/tntcal/flosfootrace

Volunteer in your comunity or donate to charity today.

I too have recently quit I went from smoking a pack and a half a day to smoking just two or three for a few days, then none. I’ve been off for over two months now, and finally the cravings have gone. Those first few days were the bulk of the effort.

I quit April 29, 1993. The joke started around that time, “Guess who finally stopped smoking? . . .David Koresh!” So, I said, if he can stop, I can stop! Was that a great reason to stop, or what? I only picked up 15 pounds, which have persisted longer than the habit. My mother never smoked, but she was a cocktail waitress for years and died of lung cancer at 57. Maybe there is something to that second-hand smoke thing. “...all men...are endowed...with certain unalienable Rights...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” What is the point where governments become too oppressive? That is up to society to decide, and it varies with each society and with each period of time. I believe that public health laws are a good thing, but that law making groups are often swayed by religious or emotional arguments more than scientific arguments. Keep a close eye on laws that are passed so they don’t become too oppressive. When they do, vote the bastards out of office, or as Last Hussar says, “vote Les”. 

Never smoked tobacco.  My mom smoked, got emphysema, and had to drag around an oxygen tank the last eight years of her life.  She died at eighty, in a family whose non-smoking women all lived well into their nineties.  So I’m not too favorably disposed to people smoking in my presence.

Here in Vienna we’re in the process of forcing restaurants to establish smoke-free areas, and the restaurant owners are, for the most part, fighting it tooth and nail, claiming that they will lose business.  I was able to enjoy a birthday meal in a great Gasthaus here for the first time, because they had just established a whole room for non-smokers.

The issue of smoke in private businesses is a thorny one.  Exactly what, and to what extent, governments should regulate, and what should rather be left to individuals to decide, is one of those fuzzy areas where it’s not at all obvious whose rights should be protected, and what “rights” individuals, or businesses, should be granted in the first place. 

While I too am sympathetic to private businesses, like private persons, having the freedom to decide for themselves what they want to do, it is obvious that there must be some restrictions, especially on practices which harm people not engaging in those practices.  It would be nice if everyone were well informed enough, and caring enough, and powerful enough, to effect changes by private action, without having to invoke governments.  Unfortunately, as we see over and over again, that’s not enough.

i agree with you zilch - but “private businesses” must be by nessecity placed in public places,so in this day and age I say “tough shit” to pro-smoking establishments - move with the times or retire ... its not like they havent had any warning signs.
Smoking fucking kills ya - full stop.

(P.s. I smoked for 10+ years)

I say “tough shit” to pro-smoking establishments - move with the times or retire ... its not like they haven’t had any warning signs.

That’s a compelling argument for abolishing atheism in America too though. The masses have spoken, etc.

http://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/how-does-a-good-laboratory-homepage-look-like-show-me-at-least-one/

Only if second-hand atheism is harmful to your health

Only if second-hand atheism is harmful to your health

DOF, I thought this was a funny comment until I remembered posters in a Catholic forum stating in all earnestness that they’re in favor of capital punishment for atheism—after all, a murder just kills the body, but an atheist endangers the immortal soul of believers (or so they say).

Doh!  The paste went wrong, doesn’t make a lot of sense.  Sorry about that.    Again:

That’s a compelling argument for abolishing atheism in America too though. The masses have spoken, etc.

Only if second-hand atheism is harmful to your health