Quote:
|
THOSE THINGS DO NOT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE
|
That's different than the standard you were using earlier. Are you banning things that affect other people, or things that kill other people? Pick one rationale and stick with it.
You also still haven't shown that second hand smoke kills people. I have shown you a WHO article that finds weak evidence of such a connection. I try not to base my decisions on weak evidence, so if you know of moderate to strong evidence that second hand smoke kills, please show me so that I may educate myself.
As to affecting other people, there are a lot of things that affect other people that we don't ban. Loud people talking on cell phones affects others, children screaming in movie theatres affects others, yet we don't ban these activities.
Quote:
|
Equating food (not that taco bell is food) to cigarettes is ridiculous (same as comparing cigarettes to children)
|
I didn't equate food to cigarettes. I showed a relationship between the two and the effect they have on other people. If you think it's ridiculous, please tell me how it was ridiculous.
It's easy to compare cigs to children. They both have an effect on other people. Do you dispute this? Do you dispute that a child screaming in a movie theatre can be as annoying as a cigarette smoker? (and don't bring up the second hand smoke kills bullshit until you link to something other than a 12 year old nonsensical EPA survey).
Quote:
|
Sadly, Sienfeld is off the air. It was the only sitcom I ever enjoyed.
|
Consider how you would feel if everybody in the country stood up and irrationally said that activity was killing them.
"Your enjoyment of Seinfeld is killing me, so you have to stop."
They present no evidence except for the testimonial of a man who said his friend died from laughing at Seinfeld 12 years ago.
No matter what you do you are incapable of getting everyone to realize that they have not shown a causitive link between the Seinfeld episode and the man's death, or a link that others are at risk if Seinfeld continues to air.
They ignore you, call you stupid and selfish, tax the shit out of the Seinfeld DVD's, and outlaw it's being show on the public airwaves.
Quote:
|
in fact, no one is trying to ban smoking at all, just where you do it and who breaths in your cancer causing smoke.
|
If my understanding of the situation is flawed, please accept my apologies. My understanding is that the governments of several US states and several countries have or are currently attempting to ban smoking indoors, specifically in bars and restaurants, even when such places have established smoking sections. Is that incorrect? If so, please explain to me how that is not a ban on smoking, and explain to me what it is, and I will adjust my word usage appropriately.
And please, if you can't cite to a legitimte study that links second hand smoke and cancer, then cut that shit out.
Quote:
|
Again, no one want's you to stop smoking. You're free to smoke all you want, just don't fill my air with your smoke and we'll get along fine. It's no more complicated than that.
|
I don't understand you, I thought the law was to prohibit me from smoking in bars and public places. How is that not wanting me to stop smoking?
What if they said you could only watch Seinfeld in Montana. Are you still free to watch Seinfeld all you want? (and if you should happen to actually live in Montana, please substitute Alaska or Arizona).
And sorry dude, I didn't realize you were at the bar the other night when I wanted to smoke. Please believe me, if I had know that it was YOUR AIR I would not have filled it with smoke. For future reference, could you possibly draw a line around your air so I know where it is and I don't pollute it.
Alternatively, if you promise to outlaw religion and war, give me a $100 million and a weekend in the woods with Britney Spears, I'm sure we'll get along fine too. It's no more complicated than that.