0

This is a slippery slope as well. The government can just say "it's for the well being of everyone" to do anything they want. Most deaths in a vehicle accident are because of high crashes. Lets make the speed limit everywhere 20 mph, it's for the good of everyone. Just like the government is already doing with "it's for national security" clause.

Hmm.. Well I don't think Americans will let it get that far. We have books like 1984 to keep us straight. ;) Besides, even if America reached a state of total socialism, it would be long after I am dead. And I really couldn't care less what happens after I'm dead.

Dana Reeve, died 44 of lung cancer, nonsmoker. Google it if you want. If you honestly don't think second hand smoke is dangerous than go ahead and smoke around your kids.

If that isn't evidence, I don't know what it.

0

The 3/5ths compromise was voted for by the black population?

That was certainly not an amendment. The 3/5th compromise was in the articles of the Constitution itself.

0

And without the opposition of the people, if that's what the people want, then why is it so bad? (Hypothetically)

Well, if you can step outside of certain indoctrinations for the moment (if need be), some things are just wrong.

0

And without the opposition of the people, if that's what the people want, then why is it so bad? (Hypothetically)

Indeed. Slavery was not considered immoral back then. Most people supported it (except the slaves, of course.) The U.S. has strict laws against punishing those who committed crimes before the laws were created.

0

That was certainly not an amendment. The 3/5th compromise was in the articles of the Constitution itself.

Nor was it likely agreed to by those upon whom this rule was imposed. The 14th amendment corrected that fault -- but unfortunately led to other issues.

0

That was certainly not an amendment. The 3/5th compromise was in the articles of the Constitution itself.

The 3/5 compromise is not in the constitution. I don't think so anyway.. The 13th-15th amendments were the amendments put in place against slavery after the civil war.

[edit] Oh I see what you mean now.. The Articles of confederation did include the 3/5 compromise.

0

Dana Reeve, died 44 of lung cancer, nonsmoker. Google it if you want. If you honestly don't think second hand smoke is dangerous than go ahead and smoke around your kids. Secondly, if you will ask me to prove every little detail, then why don't you prove to me how you are able to communicate with me through your computer to mine so that I know I'm not just arguing with myself right now? Where's the proof? Let's see some evidence.

Lung cancer didn't exist before tobacco smoke?

0

Well, if you can step outside of certain indoctrinations for the moment (if need be), some things are just wrong.

Many people would disagree with you. Who are you to say one form of government is wrong just because you don't agree with it? In some countries they love their leader with a passion and they would never want any other form of government and those are the feelings of all the people in the country. Some of these countries are communist. Who are we to say that's wrong? (And if they want to ban smoking, let them. They will end up being a healthier country than us. *Gasp* A communist nation better than us at something. That will certainly get our government to rething such legislation, won't it?)

0

...................no it didn't........prove me wrong.

Well before I try some trivial web searching that youngsters seem to be immune to -- ironic, the thirst for knowledge apparently stops when opinions differ -- I'll offer the counter-argument: has there ever been a person who smoked and died of natural causes.

0

The 3/5 compromise is not in the constitution. I don't think so anyway.. The 13th-15th amendments were the amendments put in place against slavery after the civil war.

[edit] Oh I see what you mean now.. The Articles of confederation did include the 3/5 compromise.

I'm 99% sure the Constitution included the 3/5th compromise

0

Well before I try some trivial web searching that youngsters seem to be immune to -- ironic, the thirst for knowledge apparently stops when opinions differ -- I'll offer the counter-argument: has there ever been a person who smoked and died of natural causes.

Nope, never....Prove me wrong (your own medicine doesn't taste too good does it?)

0

I'm 99% sure the Constitution included the 3/5th compromise

Your right. Sorry.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

0

http://www.gasp.org/ETS2005.html

You asked for it. Here's a little proof.

"A recent landmark experiment in healthy young nonsmokers revealed that a mere 30 minute exposure to secondhand smoke causes changes in coronary blood flow, specifically a substantial reduction in the coronary flow velocity reserve, that are indistinguishable from those of habitual smokers."

"An April 7, 2006 study, British Medical Journal, revealed that secondhand smoke increases the risk of developing glucose intolerance or diabetes.

Dana Reeve, a non-smoker exposed to secondhand smoke in the nightclubs and other public places where she sang, died recently of lung cancer. Secondhand smoke may well have been a factor in claiming her life."

Hmm...public places? And she died at only 44? And you don't think you are infringing upon my rights to live when you smoke in a restaurant?

0

I'm 99% sure the Constitution included the 3/5th compromise

Thanks for proving me right.

Okay, so the original US Constitution accidentally legalized the tyranny of the majority and the 14th amendment to it supposedly fixed it while breaking other things. What is your point?

Nope, never....Prove me wrong (your own medicine doesn't taste too good does it?)

Well, yeah. If you understand the point you are trying to make.

http://www.gasp.org/ETS2005.html

You asked for it. Here's a little proof.

"A recent landmark experiment in healthy young nonsmokers revealed that a mere 30 minute exposure to secondhand smoke causes changes in coronary blood flow, specifically a substantial reduction in the coronary flow velocity reserve, that are indistinguishable from those of habitual smokers."

"An April 7, 2006 study, British Medical Journal, revealed that secondhand smoke increases the risk of developing glucose intolerance or diabetes.

Dana Reeve, a non-smoker exposed to secondhand smoke in the nightclubs and other public places where she sang, died recently of lung cancer. Secondhand smoke may well have been a factor in claiming her life."

Hmm...public places? And she died at only 44? And you don't think you are infringing upon my rights to live when you smoke in a restaurant?

I guess that means I'd need to investigate gasp.org for impartiality.

[edit]Oh, look "Group to Alleviate Smoking in Public". I'm pretty sure I can chalk that one up along with the Tobacco industry's rebuttals to smoking regulations.[/edit]

Do you have any real evidence?

0

Honestly, I am perplexed.

If it is so unbelievably obvious for folks to make me look like an idiot, and I have been doing so for days... then what is everyone waiting for?

0

Besides, even if America reached a state of total socialism, it would be long after I am dead. And I really couldn't care less what happens after I'm dead.

We are so close now, I failed to see the humor long ago. Why is everyone always clamoring for more?

[edit]Conversely: what more socialism do you want?

0

FYI, the people who cause inconvenience to others by smoking or the people who make laws aren't following this discussion.

Clobbering each others feelings and views is no way to come to a conclusion. There is always a common ground and its the one on which we are standing right now.

0

FYI, the people who cause inconvenience to others by smoking or the people who make laws aren't following this discussion.

Clobbering each others feelings and views is no way to come to a conclusion. There is always a common ground and its the one on which we are standing right now.

blah, those smoking fools don't know what they're talking about ;)

0

>>"An April 7, 2006 study, British Medical Journal, revealed that secondhand smoke increases the risk of developing glucose intolerance or diabetes.

Oh! First time I head that one and is possibly why I have type 2 diabetes today.

>>blah, those smoking fools don't know what they're talking about
Fools -- yes I agree. It is very foolish for people to smoke.

0

blah, those smoking fools don't know what they're talking about ;)

I've become more concerned with the vast number of miseducated people electing officials to make bad laws based on junk science.

It also happens to be foolish to believe everything you read. For example, this article is also from the British Medical Journal.

0

@Dave Sinkula

Just read the cato.org article. Very interesting. One quick question: The study mentioned the EPA classed second-hand smoke as a 'Group A Carcinogin'. On what grounds within the studies they did use was that drawn from? And do you know what portions of the smoke were supposedly carcinogenic?

2

...................................................

I spent the last hour reading this thread.. every page, nearly every post. I'll stay out of the socalism/consitution discussion as i know nothing of it, but here's what stuck out in my mind:

but, the thing is... it depends on the restaurant you go to... i think no one would be as idiotic to go and smoke at a McDonalds... but if you're at Ruby Tuesday's for example, that's why they have a smokers and non smokers section...

Why wouldn't you smoke at McDonalds?

When would someone under 18 try to force someone else to smoke? - sk8

All the time, do you live under a rock? Or somehow have never encountered peer pressure....... dang can i live your life sometime?

All the time. And I'm the living example of why not. Just like my Dad. - dave

:D That was a great quote.

True. Now it's just marijuana and alcohol. ;-) - Christina

ahem :halo: ;)

But it was probably a bad choice since my point was poorly dropped in. This was half intentional, in part also because I was trying to see if I would be immediately stereotyped as gay bashing rather than trying to work the health risk or government intrusion tie-ins. - dave

You weren't, which must show something..

Wait a second: if you don't like cigarette smoke so much, why is your favorite restaurant the one that has smoke lingering in the air? Are you retarded, or do you just get off by acting that way around others? - rashakil

Maybe the food's nice.

But again if I want to skateboard it doesn't affect your health. - sk8

Unless you skate into some unwilling person walking by and knock them other, they hit their head causing trauma (sp?) which leads to death.

Should A smoker be forced out into the cold, or should non-smokers be forced to wear gas-masks in public places ? - holly

You win. End of.

And the same rule of not in work places/indoor public places comes into effect from 1st July in England. Tesco workers have been told not to congregate in the designated area of the car park while on fag breaks.

I am the only person who doesn't (and hasn't) smoked cigerettes but kinda likes/doesn't mind the smell. I won't smoke soley for i don't want to waste £20 a week on fags, because I will get addicted.

I don't think i contributed much, but heh, it's all been said hasn't it?

Votes + Comments
Minor note: Might want to watch your choice of slang. That word has a different meaning in the US.
0

At least we go smoke free on July 1st in the Uk in all public and enclosed work places.
Too little too late.
Ireland had this ages ago.

0

@Dave Sinkula

Just read the cato.org article. Very interesting. One quick question: The study mentioned the EPA classed second-hand smoke as a 'Group A Carcinogin'. On what grounds within the studies they did use was that drawn from? And do you know what portions of the smoke were supposedly carcinogenic?

I believe that the 1992 EPA study points to information in many other studies, that probably point to information in many other studies, that probably point to information in even more studies, and somwhere in all that is the actual determination by somebody.

0

We are so close now, I failed to see the humor long ago. Why is everyone always clamoring for more?

[edit]Conversely: what more socialism do you want?

Bush is never ever going to let us go anywhere near socialism. We aren't close now anymore than we were in the past two hundred thirty years.

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.