Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
Well, I guess I can't really answer that. I just hope that the majority doesn't turn against something you enjoy doing without evidence that it's harming other people.
|
And if they do, i will accept the fact that sometimes the price of living in a community is conforming to the whims of the majority. Even when i did smoke, i agreed with the idea that smoking should be banned in restaurants and bars.
Quote:
|
You are exposed to cancer causing chemicals constantly. Not just in the air you breathe from smokers, but in the milk you drink, the food you consume, and the sunlight you see. What you should be worried about is the amount of exposure and the relative risk associated with such exposure. The question should be, does second hand smoke produce cancer causing chemicals in such amounts that it poses a healh risk to bystanders? If that answer is yes, then I completely agree that smoking should be banned. But in the absence of real evidence to substantiate that position, I must disagree.
|
Minimization is minimization, and smoking causes more than just cancer. I see what you're saying though.
Quote:
|
I don't agree that is what governments must necessarily do. And if you really believe that governments look out for the best interests of citizens, well, you obviously either don't live in the US or are ridiculously naive. I can't speak for other countries, but the US government exists for one reason: to perpetuate itself and make sure the rich white men stay rich and white.
|
Yeah, i guess looking out for the citizen's best interest is a responsibility that has long since been shifted way down the list of priorities. But you have to admit that self-perpetuation and the protection of the rich white man doesn't preclude banning smoking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sbudda
I think this statement bothered me the most...
Any person who believes this is obviously not a person I need to be arguing with. Yes I have benefitted from regulation of private business. Thinks like food poisioning and licensing of hair stylists have made my life much better. However I believe in setting limits on that power. I hope you are happy with your babysitter. Personally, I'm an adult and don't want or need one.
|
And you decide where we draw the line? I thought that was the job of the constitution and the citizens. You see, there are limits on that power. Limits that don't involve vague buzzwords like "babysit". I trust the government to regulate businesses because business has time and time again proven that it needs to be regulated. You can call it babysitting all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you benefit from the babysitter. It doesn't change the fact that you'd shit your pants if the government decided to stop babysitting you. It seems rather ironic to me that you would agree to the idea that you benefit from the government's babysitting and then piss on me for saying that i benefit from a babysitting government.
Perhaps all you
adults can buy plain tickets to somalia, where they don't even have a government to babysit anyone, and leave us pewling children to wallow in the protective babysitter arms of uncle sam.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
snippage
|
I see what you're saying. Smoking bans aren't always outright bans. In my fair city the smoking "bans" that are going into effect this spring are actually just requirements that most establishments create seperate ventilated rooms for the smokers to smoke in.
As for the hordes of nonsmokers want to dring in clean air, i would argue the point that, just because a market isn't being tapped, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.