0

Unfortunately there are four flaws in your little story. One: Sunlight only causes cancer under certain circumstances as in far too much exposure. Two: Sunlight is natural and inevitable (unlike smoking). Three: Smoking is something that is much easier and reasonable to ban than sunlight. Four: Someone that is resistant to sunlight can take precautions of their own such as sunscreen, an umbrella, etc. as they are a minority (such as smokers are a minority as well).

0

> Unfortunately there are four flaws in your little story. One: Sunlight only causes cancer under certain circumstances as in far too much exposure.

One: This is where you lose your mind. Second hand smoke causes cancer only under overexposure, too.

> Two:

Two: You can count!

Three: So can I.

> Sunlight is natural and inevitable (unlike smoking).

Four: No, you can block it with shading technology.

> Three: Smoking is something that is much easier and reasonable to ban than sunlight.

Five: Do you have any justification for this? Or do you justify your moral beliefs by making stuff up?

> Four: Someone that is resistant to sunlight can take precautions of there own such as sunscreen, an umbrella, etc. as they are a minority (such as smokers are a minority as well).

Six: In that case, let's ban rap. Black people are a minority, and their minority music is polluting the neighborhood.

0

I hate rap. But it doesn't harm anyone.

And here's an idea. If you think that everyone has a right to smoke and it doesn't hurt anyone then why don't we legalize marijuana too? Why not legalize assault? It too is something that harms those around them and appearantly people seem to believe they have that right. Smoking has no benefit for anyone.

0

> And here's an idea. If you think that everyone has a right to smoke and it doesn't hurt anyone then why don't we legalize marijuana too?

Um, we should legalize marijuana. Why should it be banned? You confuse me.

> Why not legalize assault?

You mean battery, right?

It is legalized. You are allowed to get into fights as long as you obey some basic legal requirements. Have you ever heard of boxing? How about football? Ice hockey?

> Smoking has no benefit for anyone.

Unless you're God, it's not your place to decide these things.

0

>why don't we legalize marijuana too?
Probably because it causes a loss of control and can easily lead to injuries or death. Just like alcohol, which is why bans on drunk driving or being drunk in public are common laws. Tobacco doesn't cause an immediate loss of control to the point where you might accidentally harm someone.

>Why not legalize assault?
Oh, because it causes immediate harm and promotes anarchy? There's a slight difference between assault and cigarette smoking, as any reasonable person would admit.

>It too is something that harms those around them
Only after many years. I have trouble believing that you think immediate grievous harm can be compared to the effects of second hand smoke.

>Smoking has no benefit for anyone.
Nor does sunbathing if you consider the harmful effects over many years. :icon_rolleyes:

0

>However, his rights end where another's begin.
If that's the case, why are you ignoring the fact that your rights also end where another's begin? ;)

I'm not. Let's be logical here, shall we? It is the smoker's right to smoke, and my right to enjoy a restaurant without having to endure smoke. Which is easier to do- seperate the restaurant into two different sections (which obviously you can not do without having some kind of airlock in between the locations) or simply tell smokers to smoke outside? They are infringing upon the non-smoker's rights.. not that other way around.

If the law says so, there's nothing we can do about it. But since we're discussing this, I'm assuming we're talking about places where it's not already illegal to smoke in a public place. And if legality is a valid reason, why don't you just say "it's the law" and be done with it?

I guess I'm not up to date on the Constitution. Could you quote the part that says non-smokers have more of a right to go to public places than smokers?

Yea, as sk8 said, state constitutions do have amendments banning smoking in restaurants. And the idea that an individual rights end where another's begin is not explicitly defined in the U.S. constitution.. however, it is implied. Ask any police officer.

One: This is where you lose your mind. Second hand smoke causes cancer only under overexposure, too.

Overexposure? Will you please define 'overexposure' quantitatively.

>Four: No, you can block it with shading technology.

Hmm.. okay, why don't we just put up a giant shade covering the entire world..

>Five: Do you have any justification for this? Or do you justify your moral beliefs by making stuff up?

Hmm.. I'd say simply logic would easily back-up his statement. Which is easier to outlaw, people smoking or the huge ass sun?

>Six: In that case, let's ban rap. Black people are a minority, and their minority music is polluting the neighborhood.

..Majority rules, minority rights are protected..

0

Um, we should legalize marijuana. Why should it be banned? You confuse me.

Theres an idea...

> Why not legalize assault?

You mean battery, right?

It is legalized. You are allowed to get into fights as long as you obey some basic legal requirements. Have you ever heard of boxing? How about football? Ice hockey?

Perhaps you are confused.. or you never watch sports. Fighting is not allowed in football nor in ice hockey..

Unless you're God, it's not your place to decide these things.

Prove that it is beneficial then.

0

> It is the smoker's right to smoke, and my right to enjoy a restaurant without having to endure smoke.

No it is not! You don't have this right. This is a completely made up right. I thought that's what we've been arguing about. Your logic is fully circular.

If there are no restaurants in the area, are your rights being violated? That's a simple test which shows you don't have a right to have a nearby restaurant that isn't filled with cigarette smoke.

0

Probably because it causes a loss of control and can easily lead to injuries or death. Just like alcohol, which is why bans on drunk driving or being drunk in public are common laws. Tobacco doesn't cause an immediate loss of control to the point where you might accidentally harm someone.

>Why not legalize assault?
Oh, because it causes immediate harm and promotes anarchy? There's a slight difference between assault and cigarette smoking, as any reasonable person would admit.

I concur..

>Smoking has no benefit for anyone.
Nor does sunbathing if you consider the harmful effects over many years. :icon_rolleyes:

Yes, but unlike sunbathing, second hand smoke is not something people choose to encounter. :-/

0

>Let's be logical here, shall we?
You're using an "x is easier than y" to counter my claim that y is infringing on someone's rights when in reality, both x and y are. I don't see the logic.

>however, it is implied.
Reading between the lines, huh? Wasn't that how the Crusades were started?

0

>
Unless you're God, it's not your place to decide these things.

Then I guess I also can't decide that premeditated unjustified murder is wrong.

0

>Yes, but unlike sunbathing, second hand smoke is not something people choose to encounter.
Bingo! Despite the same harmful effects, sunbathing is legal and accepted while smoking is not (of course smokers accept it). And that's my point. It's not about morals or laws, it's about you not liking something and wanting to suppress it. If you're successful (as has been the case in a lot of places) you can then claim to be right because the law, or public opinion, sided with you.

That's all this is.

0

AGAIN, something like sunbathing doesn't harm the people around you that choose not to participate whereas smoking does. I thought we at least agreed on that.

0

>Reading between the lines, huh? Wasn't that how the Crusades were started?

The Constitution was very very brief. It leaves many many things unmentioned and even today we use what are called implied powers. If you don't believe in implied powers then there's nothing in the Constitution from stopping a total ban on smoking altogether even in the private sector.

0

Oh, I almost wish we were in the day of "separate but equal" when businesses gave me a small stinky room to have a 2-minute break during the winter.

But I found something for Josh to take a look at:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

Please do your homework. Tonight I'd like to argue that your position WRT smoking is both unscientific and anti-capitalist.

0

>AGAIN, something like sunbathing doesn't harm the people around you
>that choose not to participate whereas smoking does.
Sure it does, unless they use clothing, sun cream, or some form of shielding to protect themselves. Wait, isn't that exactly what smokers are suggesting for non-smokers? :D

0

If you want to sunbathe. That won't affect me one bit. But if you want to smoke, it will damage my lungs. Simple enough, right?

0

>Let's be logical here, shall we?
You're using an "x is easier than y" to counter my claim that y is infringing on someone's rights when in reality, both x and y are. I don't see the logic.

X is infringing upon the rights of y, because X is forcing y to inhale dangerous chemicals. Y does not want to inhale these chemicals, so Y outlaws the chemicals. X can still go to the restaurant. This way, everyone can enjoy public places. (I think I went a bit too far with the variable analogy lol..)

>however, it is implied.
Reading between the lines, huh? Wasn't that how the Crusades were started?

It's also how the Supreme Court makes decisions regarding the law..

>Yes, but unlike sunbathing, second hand smoke is not something people choose to encounter.
Bingo! Despite the same harmful effects, sunbathing is legal and accepted while smoking is not (of course smokers accept it). And that's my point. It's not about morals or laws, it's about you not liking something and wanting to suppress it. If you're successful (as has been the case in a lot of places) you can then claim to be right because the law, or public opinion, sided with you.

That's all this is.

True, I dislike smoke. But, I cannot have something banned simply because I disklike it. I dislike many things, but you don't see me out getting people to sign restrictions banning trivial matters. Smoking has been proven to cause harm to human beings. Period. It has been proven without a doubt.. Second hand smoke is a bit more controversial.. But still, I dislike smoke b/c it causes me harm. Why should it not be banned? It isn't like we are banning smoking EVERYWHERE. Just in public places where others who do not want to be around smoke are. Besides, laws against smoking in restaurants have been increasing around the U.S. Obviously, lawmakers would side with me. And truthfully.. that's all that matters ;)

0

AGAIN, something like sunbathing doesn't harm the people around you that choose not to participate whereas smoking does. I thought we at least agreed on that.

Smoking in restaurants only harms people that choose to participate.........

0

... they don't choose to inhale smoke, and they do not enjoy the atmosphere. But, hell.. if every restaurant is like that what can you do? Who doesn't enjoy the occasional trip to a restaurant for good food?

0

... they don't choose to inhale smoke, and they do not enjoy the atmosphere. But, hell.. if every restaurant is like that what can you do? Who doesn't enjoy the occasional trip to a restaurant for good food?

Non-smokers in the absence of smoking bans?

0

... they don't choose to inhale smoke, and they do not enjoy the atmosphere. But, hell.. if every restaurant is like that what can you do? Who doesn't enjoy the occasional trip to a restaurant for good food?

So if you don't have any chinese restaurants in town but a bunch of people want to eat chinese food, it's okay for them to force restaurants to make chinese food?

0

Does that make sense? Does it have anything to do with smoking? No. You simply try to over analyze everything.

0

Smoking in restaurants only harms people that choose to participate.........

.........and everyone who is in the restaurant that isn't smoking.

0

Only because there is no other way they can enjoy the same restaurant as the smokers. Just the same as me being a participant by driving on the road at the same time that drunk drivers are on the road. Is it then my fault if I am seriously injured in an accident?

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.