Smoking Nazis strike again

[Adam]

I've got a simple solution to all of this: legalize duelling.  Secondhand smoke a problem?  Challenge the guy to a duel.  Someone's drinking and driving and plows into your car and kills your wife?  A duel.  Bill in NYC's a proselytizing elitist disparaging everyone who disagrees with him?  Pistols at 10 paces. 

 

Everyone would get along much better, and the world would probably be a better place, if we knew our actions were answerable with our lives.  At the very least, the world would be a lot less crowded.

541188[/snapback]

Makes you wonder if some of the punishments in other countries that we consider barbaric are really a necessary evil- those punishments dont get doled out much either (at least I think they dont)

[Adam]

Well, in the spirit of things I just went out and blew some cigar smoke into a baby carriage. Have to do my part for freedoms and rights.

540950[/snapback]

I know that you're kidding- but the night that I got really sick from it, some guy thought it was funny that I was coughing (before spitting blood), and he walked up to me, and blew smoke in my face twice...leading to the blood (never even apologized.

 

This is not to say that I lump all smokers with this jerk

[Alaska Darin]

I could find nothing supporting that.  I did find that in certain places, spitting on seagulls and sidewalks is illegal, but nothing about spitting on other people.  Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you are grasping at straws as you know it would be an unenforced law.  Is that the best you can do in differentiating?

That's such a bad response I'm not even going to bother with it.

 

Hypocrite.  Smokers want it all their way, but that's OK.  The avenue to prevent such has been taken via non-smokers sponsoring legislative action, as our system was set up to do, but somehow that's not comprehended by you?

I'm not a smoker. For me (AGAIN), it comes down to the government telling private establishments that they are going to regulate legal behavior by adults. That's it.

 

The government is not doing this unilaterally.  Reasearch how it came about in CA.  It was because the populace sponsored and voted for it.  Again, that is our system.

And I don't agree with it, nor do I find it to be in the spirit of freedom. We're a representative republic and not a democracy for a reason. Mob rules and all that. Virtually all governments fail because the populous eventually figures out how to vote things for themselves at the expense of others.

 

Invoking the slave issue is beneath you.  Do you really think there is a comparison?  I surely hope not.  The problem with the government is that normal everyday people do not get involved enough unless it pushes their buttons.  Most are oblivious to the infrastructure to which you refer, but take away their hot pockets and you'll certainly get a rise.

I wasn't comparing slavery to smoking. I was comparing those who think because they are in the majority that they are always right. The fact is, they rarely are.

Bottom line, if smokers (and people in general) were considerate enough exercise their habit in a non-intrusive way, I wouldn't care.  It's what I do, but unfortunately, personal responsibility is lost on most normal people.  They feel they should be able to do what they want and to hell if it makes someone else uncomfortable or sick.  Very sad commentary on the human race.

Well, there is that "you could start your own non-smoking restaurant and basically print money" thing but it's alot easier to pretend that smokers are demons. BTW, it's virtually always healthier to eat at home.

Lastly, if there really were a model where private establishements like restaurants and bars did equitably divide their services between those allowing and those restricting smoking, I'd have no complaint.  Problem is, I want to got out to dinner with my Wife, and I no longer live in CA.  Unless we go to McD's, we pretty much have to deal with smoke.  However, the avenue given to us to rectify the situation is enacting legislation.  I don't see why anyone would have a problem support that type of system.  There is nothing stopping smokers from going to cigar lounges if they want to smoke.  Resaurants are for eating and bars are for drinking.

To be honest with you I don't know why that isn't the way the laws passed. Any further opening of restaurants, bars, etc should have a clear line of demarcation between smoking and non. Kind of the grandfather thing.

You may pooh-pooh it, but there is a historical pass that has been given to smokers, and it is quickly running out, thankfully.

You're probably right. Now we simply rape them of money, give it to bureaucrats, and pretend we're doing a good thing. I guess payback is a B word.

I was just thinking, how is it possible that the Jaguars are about to make the playoffs and the Bills are fighting for a top-5 draft pick?

541622[/snapback]

Don't remind me. Of course, their interior DLine is light years ahead of ours.

[Berg]

Regarding illegal spitting, do you expect me to just take your word for it? Sorry, I don't. Prove it and I'll retract that analogy. Remember, just because you can't think of an intelligent quip in response, that doesn't mean something is stupid. What it actually means I'm smarter than you are.

 

What you've failed to address even in passing is how society is supposed to operate if not by setting general expectations for acceptable behaviour then enacting legislation to enforce that which it deems appropriate. Laws have been a classical gauge of how civilized a society is.

 

And mob mentality is exactly why laws are necessary. If you get a whole bunch of idiots...err people together, say for a Bills game. Sprinkle liberally with alcohol, and what do you get? Imagine how that would be without even the hint of repurcussions.

 

Smokers do not have to smoke at bars. They do not have to smoke at restaurants. I don't appreciate watery eyes and stinky clothes due to their personal choice on the very small amount of times I go each year. If I had the choice to go to non-smoking bars or restaurants, I would. I don't have that choice unless I go to CA.

 

And if you can convince my Wife that we should stay home for her birthday and our anniversary rather that go out to eat, I'll buy you a cigar. Or a can of Cope. Or an "I'm with stupid" T-shirt or somethin'.

 

Now I gotta go finish watching the 4th Q of the Bills game.

 

Later "butt"-head...

[UConn James]

You could always do what my old man did back in the '60s.

 

Guy across a horseshoe bar was smoking a big cigar.

Guy was kindly asked not to blow smoke in his direction.

Guy took a big puff and blew it right at him.

Guy had his cigar ripped out of his mouth in one fell swoop, and snuffed out in his mashed potatoes.

Guy spent the rest of time while my father finished eating not knowing whether to sh-- or turn purple.

[TheMadCap]

I'm not sure, as in, I don't have empirical proof, but I would be willing to bet that actually spitting on another person would be considered assault and would be dealt with as seriously as physically striking someone. Not to mention the biohazard issue...

[TheMadCap]

To be fair, I could do without having to breathe cigarette smoke in public as well. But as you both have so forcefully pointed out, it SHOULD be a consideration issue for people to obey smoking laws, and it definitely SHOULD not be the governments responsibility to regulate smoking laws in private establishments like restuarants and bars.

 

You may not agree, but I don't think the government should have to pass common sense laws like wearing your seatbelt, and wearing a helmet to operate a motorcycle.

 

And, perhaps I was a bit melodramatic with my statement, but I certainly don't find it laughable to use Orwellian concepts to describe this particular situation. Because I do pay attention to current events, and most of what I hear coming from the lawyers these days is pretty scary stuff...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I know that you're kidding- but the night that I got really sick from it, some guy thought it was funny that I was coughing (before spitting blood), and he walked up to me, and blew smoke in my face twice...leading to the blood (never even apologized.

 

This is not to say that I lump all smokers with this jerk

541961[/snapback]

 

I would have decked the guy.

 

Or maybe not, if I were already coughing up blood.

 

That, though, is less a "smoking" issue and more a "people have no sense of decency" issue. Like the guy I almost killed the other day at Home Depot, who leaned his four sheets ot three-quarter ply against my new car while he talked on the cell phone. Sure, we could pass some "anti-plywood" law, and that "wouldn't" happen...but it doesn't help the root issue: that people - some, not all - are simply ass holes.

[Berg]

I would have decked the guy. 

 

Or maybe not, if I were already coughing up blood. 

 

That, though, is less a "smoking" issue and more a "people have no sense of decency" issue.  Like the guy I almost killed the other day at Home Depot, who leaned his four sheets ot three-quarter ply against my new car while he talked on the cell phone.    Sure, we could pass some "anti-plywood" law, and that "wouldn't" happen...but it doesn't help the root issue: that people - some, not all - are simply ass holes.

542164[/snapback]

 

That's been my point all along.

[Berg]

To be fair, I could do without having to breathe cigarette smoke in public as well. But as you both have so forcefully pointed out, it SHOULD be a consideration issue for people to obey smoking laws, and it definitely SHOULD not be the governments responsibility to regulate smoking laws in private establishments like restuarants and bars.

 

You may not agree, but I don't think the government should have to pass common sense laws like wearing your seatbelt, and wearing a helmet to operate a motorcycle.

 

And, perhaps I was a bit melodramatic with my statement, but I certainly don't find it laughable to use Orwellian concepts to describe this particular situation. Because I do pay attention to current events, and most of what I hear coming from the lawyers these days is pretty scary stuff...

542143[/snapback]

 

I'm knee deep in present wrapping and toy putting-together, but more later on why I have no Orwellian fears.

[Chilly]

That's been my point all along.

542169[/snapback]

 

Nop. It hasn't.

[Berg]

Nop.  It hasn't.

542174[/snapback]

Yeah, it has times infinity.

 

From post#1:

"Maybe smokers will eventually get the hint that their individual rights do not extend to people around them, especially kids."

[Chilly]

Yeah, it has times infinity.

 

From post#1:

"Maybe smokers will eventually get the hint that their individual rights do not extend to people around them, especially kids."

542178[/snapback]

 

Nop. It hasn't.

 

People having decency applies both ways, including the many people (who you are arguing for) who take anti-smoking legislation to a zealous level.

[Berg]

Nop.  It hasn't.

 

People having decency applies both ways, including the many people (who you are arguing for) who take anti-smoking legislation to a zealous level.

542183[/snapback]

 

You obviously aren't paying attention, and of anyone here, I feel comfortable claiming to be the expert in my own opinion. I'm arguing for no one but myself, so re-read the entire thread - or don't - and choose to comprehend - or don't. In any case, I have no intention of re-hashing everything I already said just because you don't get it.

[stuckincincy]

You obviously aren't paying attention, and of anyone here, I feel comfortable claiming to be the expert in my own opinion.  I'm arguing for no one but myself, so re-read the entire thread - or don't - and choose to comprehend - or don't.  In any case, I have no intention of re-hashing everything I already said just because you don't get it.

542289[/snapback]

 

Berg, I have to say, you are starting to irritate me. You have made several unkind, uncalled-for, rude attacks upon posters as this thread wore on.

 

Understand what I said earlier: smoking costs smokers most of all.

 

I would think better of you, if you would say: "I will endeavor to make smoking illegal. I understand that they will live longer, and therefore cost me money. I also realize that they subsidize my home State's appetitite for taxation, so I gladly will fork over 700 bucks or so per year in additional taxation to make up the shortfall once tobacco is deemed illegal. I understand that this so-called "tobacco settelement", an attack economic and imperial by the the government upon the private sector, has only served to richen State coffers, and know that the States use about 2% of the money coercered, for anti-smoking programs."

 

Gain a bit of introspection about the goals of the crowd who pulled that off. Don't ever think you can't be next, whence it starts. The history of the world proves so, time after time.

 

You should be ashamed, for your attack on the citizenry that rightfully exercise their private affairs.

 

 

 

Be the man...

[Alexander Hamilton]

I don't have the patience to deal with all of your quotes and rebuttals, but Berg is dead on wrong about the legality of spitting, so he can flush that analogy.

 

Physical assault is any act of violent contact between two individuals, usually against the victim’s will. Physical assault can be perpetrated through the use of hands, arms, or feet. It may involve hitting, pushing, kicking, biting, or even spitting.

 

one state's law

 

Spitting is generally at least an assault. (Google: spitting assault) In some cases, when the expectorator has HIV or something like that, it can be battery.

 

Further, and this is a memory from law school that may be mistaken, if someone spits on me, and I beat the snot out of him, I can defend my attack as provoked because spitting falls into the category of "fighting words." The other things that can be fighting words are questioning someone's sexuality (one TBD poster's province), or calling someone a racial epithet.

 

Not only that, how could I not chime in once Tom brought up dueling?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Not only that, how could I not chime in once Tom brought up dueling?

542500[/snapback]

 

[Berg]

I don't have the patience to deal with all of your quotes and rebuttals, but Berg is dead on wrong about the legality of spitting, so he can flush that analogy.

one state's law

 

Spitting is generally at least an assault. (Google: spitting assault) In some cases, when the expectorator has HIV or something like that, it can be battery.

 

Further, and this is a memory from law school that may be mistaken, if someone spits on me, and I beat the snot out of him, I can defend my attack as provoked because spitting falls into the category of "fighting words." The other things that can be fighting words are questioning someone's sexuality (one TBD poster's province), or calling someone a racial epithet.

 

Not only that, how could I not chime in once Tom brought up dueling?

542500[/snapback]

EDIT:

 

Dead wrong? I never claimed it was legal. I doubted Darin because it seems to be such a stupid thing to be illegal. However, after doing a little more searching, I found that Indiana, by coincidence, has a battery by bodily fluids charge. So analogy retracted, as I said I would do.

 

Unlike most on this board, I can admit when I don't know something and will revise my argument or stance if necessary based on new information. Trivial in this instance.

[Berg]

Berg, I have to say, you are starting to irritate me. You have made several unkind, uncalled-for, rude attacks upon posters as this thread wore on.

 

Understand what I said earlier: smoking costs smokers most of all.

 

I would think better of you, if you would say: "I will endeavor to make smoking illegal.  I understand that they will live longer, and therefore cost me money. I also realize that they subsidize my home State's appetitite for taxation, so I gladly will fork over 700 bucks or so per year in additional taxation to make up the shortfall once tobacco is deemed illegal. I understand that this so-called "tobacco settelement", an attack economic and imperial by the the government upon the private sector, has only served to richen State coffers, and know that the States use about 2% of the money coercered, for anti-smoking programs."

 

Gain a bit of introspection about the goals of the crowd who pulled that off. Don't ever think you can't be next, whence it starts. The history of the world proves so, time after time.

 

You should be ashamed, for your attack on the citizenry that rightfully exercise their private affairs.  

Be the man...

542461[/snapback]

 

Sorry, but if you thought what I've said previously was rude, you'll think this is too. I really don't give a sh-- if you're getting irritated. The only poster I was "rude" to was dumb-sh-- blue fire, because s/he started trying to tell me what my opinion really is. If you thought I was being rude to Darin, then you don't know anything about him or me. Ask him yourself and see what he says. I'm sure he'll say something similar to what I say about him - I enjoy debate with him especially when he's wrong and I never let any post on a stupid message board bother me; I know him well enough to know I respect him quite a bit.

 

Lastly, in response to your dorky paragraph about what you'd like me to say, well why don't you pay attention too. I just want to be able to go to a bar and/or restaurant and not breathe smoke since I don't smoke. The rest is bull sh--. I'm a tobacco user; I don't want it made illegal. How do you people not get that by now?

 

Not only am I not ashamed, I am in fact proud that I live in a country where, as a member of the military, I support and defend each citizen's right to voice their opinion freely about any topic they so choose.

 

Anything else I can help you with???