smoking ban

Quote:

---

Its helping them because its promoting them quiting a bad habit that's gonna kill them in the long run. Therefore it should be harder for them to smoke! Isn't suicide illegal? I know its not at the same magnitude, but its completely justifiable for a government to ban certain things in public places if its going to kill the people doing it.

---

i dont want to give up smoking! regardless of how you feel about it, i enjoy smoking. that might not make sense to you and you might think what a tosser i am. but you cant take away my right to smoke. you think your doing us a favour by "discouraging" smoking. well heres some news for you, IT IS ONLY MAKING ME WANT TO SMOKE MORE! as far as im concerned, all you anti smokers out there have no place telling me i should give up. i do not smoke around people who are non-smokers and am doing nothing wrong. my life is MY life and i will do what i want with it. if i knock 20 years of it off by being a smoker, i will at least have enjoyed my life cause you dont get a second one.

Quote:

---

passive smoking kills. fact. preveting deaths is the governments job. what we pay taxes for. and so preenting passive smoking prevents death and the government has done it's job.

---

Stepping outside kills. Fact. Not allowing you to step outside, in a car, bus, or airplane prevents death. So the government should lock us all up.

If you don't like smoking, don't go where it's allowed. How the HELL is that not fair?

Quote:

---

passive smoking kills. fact. preveting deaths is the governments job. what we pay taxes for. and so preenting passive smoking prevents death and the government has done it's job.

---

no it doesn't. Common sense.

Quote:

---

you think your doing us a favour by "discouraging" smoking. well heres some news for you, IT IS ONLY MAKING ME WANT TO SMOKE MORE!

---

Yeah, that's normal. The more they annoy you with not doing it, the more you wish to do it.

nikotine i'm confused. we're you saying that passive smoking doesn't kill?

In large enough quantities I am certian passive smoke can lead to Lung cancer... which last I checked can kill. Not to mention it ruins the health of whomever is exposed to it.

Anyways I can easily see a place allowing smokers to smoke as long as thier was a non-smoking establishment of the same type(to gas stations one where employee's smoke one where they don't etc... in a larger city this shouldn't be a problem.. in smaller however).

This is a question of who's rights get stomped on. One gas station within 30+(not difficult in the boonies) miles you either use it or don't have a car, without a car mainting a job can be difficult(with out a car my dad would have to ride a bike for 3 or so hours(at around 20mph) to get to work. As it is he works 12-18 hours a day... so that could make some trouble.) the station is a smoking establishment. So thus non-smokers rights have been stomped. much more severly then making the smoker go outside. That is barely harming one's rights at all(unless there is bad weather.. but then you always got your home, and patio deck things).


Basically I look at it that some one's rights will be stepped on(at least in small towns). So I would rather do least harm(banning smoking in public buildings) and at the same time stop people from harming/killing one another.

Cloud, you're not very good at debating. People are stepping all over you
and you keep replying with 2 line posts which don't address most of the
issues directed toward you.

Preventing deaths isn't the government's job. Giving its people security is
the government's job. Massive difference.

.opt

you want a longer post? fine. the one line post was there because it was an actual question. it was not a part of the deabte i was confused by what she had said that is all.

people here will testify that i am capable of posting some extremely long posts when the need is there. now it is not. there is no reason to post more than is required.

as for not being able to debate. i think since i came back onto this forum and have ignited alot of debates some on very controversial issues i have always fought my corner well. most people would agree with that and i am very capable whe it comes to debating.

on this topic i have became slightly lazy for a few reasons. most of what i would normally debate is being done for me and i don't belive in repeating what someone else has said. and really i've already won. come march i'll be drinking in smoke free pubs so i don't have much to argue for.

and coming to my only real point of deabte here. the role of government is to prevent death. to have a government that does not is a laissez-faire society. which was discarded with the rest of the crap ideas on society in the victorian era and early 20th century. to have a governments whose job it is not to prevent death and illness in it's population leads to poor sanitation and cholera, building regulation, child factory workers and miners, no health and safety, leaded bread and no aid for the needy.

the idea that the government's sole duty was to control and fund the army is an idea dead for a hundred years. and rightly so.

Quote:

---

the role of government is to prevent death.

---

No, the role of the government is the protection of individual rights. This, primarily, means freedom. The freedom to choose whether to smoke or not, the freedom to choose whether to frequent an establishment that allows smoking or not. It's YOUR choice - it's not the government's job to make choices for you.

Quote:

---

to have a government that does not is a laissez-faire society. which was discarded with the rest of the crap ideas on society in the victorian era and early 20th century.

---

It was never tried in the first place.

Quote:

---

to have a governments whose job it is not to prevent death and illness in it's population leads to poor sanitation and cholera, building regulation, child factory workers and miners, no health and safety, leaded bread and no aid for the needy.

---

The closest the world ever came to a free society was the United States(up until early-mid 1900s). The US experienced, during that time period, an unprecedented economic explosion, along with massive increases in living conditions, standard health, and average incomes. That's what a system based on "lasseiz-faire" competition(which encourages growth) does.

oh dear another american thinking america was the only country to have laissez-faire. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

britain had it. it was ened by the liberals. it was the time leaded bread was sold, people were busy catching cholera, children were working in factories and down the pits, we had dung heaps in cities, houses for factory workers consisted of one room for the whole family.

those were the days..........

yep we did have it. i studied the time too. did an essay on the end of it (the start of the welfare start) which i passed my hisotry exam on. and unless that was all some great mistake of mine and the examiner never saw it at all then i do believe that i have a point.

must try harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

you want a longer post? fine. the one line post was there because it was an actual question. it was not a part of the deabte i was confused by what she had said that is all.

---

The problem is, nearly every one of your posts has been a line or two
and they've mostly ignored the posts coming before it. You say you
don't like to restate something that's already been said, this means
that you must read the other posts in the thread or you are a liar. Now
if you do read the other posts in the thread, why is it that you have
not addressed the posts which have been directed at you? Either you
have not read them--and thus are a liar. The other option is that you
have read them and ignored them either because you do not feel they
matter enough to spend your time replying--in which case you're simply
egotistical, or you do not have a response and you are hoping that
people won't notice that you could not argue your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

people here will testify that i am capable of posting some extremely long posts when the need is there. now it is not. there is no reason to post more than is required.

---

The problem here is that to form a decent argument, you're going to
need more than a couple of fragment sentences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

as for not being able to debate. i think since i came back onto this forum and have ignited alot of debates some on very controversial issues i have always fought my corner well. most people would agree with that and i am very capable whe it comes to debating.

---

Unfortunately I have yet to see this. Also remember that starting an
argument is different from debating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

on this topic i have became slightly lazy for a few reasons. most of what i would normally debate is being done for me and i don't belive in repeating what someone else has said. and really i've already won. come march i'll be drinking in smoke free pubs so i don't have much to argue for.

---

I think the people in Uzbekistan should be killed daily for political crimes.
I don't have to argue this point because it already happens. I win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and coming to my only real point of deabte here. the role of government is to prevent death. to have a government that does not is a laissez-faire society. which was discarded with the rest of the crap ideas on society in the victorian era and early 20th century. to have a governments whose job it is not to prevent death and illness in it's population leads to poor sanitation and cholera, building regulation, child factory workers and miners, no health and safety, leaded bread and no aid for the needy.

---

Once again, the government's job is not to prevent death. If that were
the government's job, society would be much different. The
government's job is to protect its citizens. Death is only a fraction of
the problems which people will face in their lifetimes. If the government's
sole function is to prevent death, there is no need, and indeed no
room for personal freedom. Yet we do have personal freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the idea that the government's sole duty was to control and fund the army is an idea dead for a hundred years. and rightly so.

---

Where have you come up with this? Nobody said anything about funding
an army. You've now started to debate a point which no one has even
considered. Either you cannot debate anything else, or you have gone
on a tangent and brought something into the argument which does
not belong, a sure sign that you are not very skilled in debating.

.opt

actually about funding an army.... you brought it up. yep you did, remember? "Giving its people security is the government's job." an army is protect the security of the people and the state.

the posts coming before mine which i am said to ignore, were already addressed by other members. in which case there is no reason to reply.

"Unfortunately I have yet to see this. Also remember that starting an
argument is different from debating." you'll notice from your quote of me that i say i start and fight my threads. so i do debate it. search through my list of posts to make sure if you want.

and on the same note. do end this. i hope this post of mine will be the last post on the matter on how i debate things (cos of course you have a god given right to decide the wrong and right way to do things around here). it's not connected to this thread, it's not supposed be in this forum or any other, it was basicly a direct attack on me forbidden on this section, and most of all you are no better than anyone else in this forum and so have no right to decide how things are debated here.

do move on and leave this subject. it's not appropiate.

No matter how you cut it Cloud 9 is at least partly right. One of our rights is the right to life. Therefore, part of it's job is to protect the lives of the citizens... however it isn't its only duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

No, the role of the government is the protection of individual rights. This, primarily, means freedom. The freedom to choose whether to smoke or not, the freedom to choose whether to frequent an establishment that allows smoking or not. It's YOUR choice - it's not the government's job to make choices for you.

---

In small towns where they are the only place like that it ain't your chioce to begin with. Our gas station emplyee's smoke, and as I have provided above they have been cited by police on a few occasions, but it continues.

Anyways you kinda need gas to get places.. particually if your job is an hour car drive away(I actually checked it out.. about 3 hours on bike). So I get gas and get smoked up.. or I don't get gas and attempt to ride in. Now if I worked my dad's hours that would mean I would only get 3 hours of sleep at home and an hour or so to get ready before repeating. Get gas on the other end? opps.. smokey there too. How about the town 22 mins away? smokey there. Really there aint' much here that doesn't allow smoking cept for a select few places.(thank god millers isn't smokey inside.. though the premises are awful).

Anyways I could car less if there was a smoke and a non-smoke place. But I feel the rights of the non-smoker over-ride since they aren't the one impeding on another's rights to begin with.

Quote:

---

oh dear another american thinking america was the only country to have laissez-faire. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

---

No, the US never had lassez-faire capitalism either. I merely said it came the closest, and under that system consistently raised the standard of living for every citizen in it. As opposed to the communist system which has consistently lowered the standard of living for every country that practiced it. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

One of our rights is the right to life. Therefore, part of it's job is to protect the lives of the citizens... however it isn't its only duty.

---

The government's only job is to protect your right to live your life. That means that nobody can make a claim on another person's right to live THEIR life either. There is no other way to possibly justify freedom - which is why the socialist ideology(which says nobody has a right to their own life) lacks freedom, and the capitalist ideology(which guarantees it) embodies it. Freedom presupposes choice. This nonsensical smoking ban takes away a choice that should rightfully belong to business owners. Until and unless smoking becomes illegal(haha), then this is wrong.

Quote:

---

nikotine i'm confused. we're you saying that passive smoking doesn't kill?

---

Yes.