Smoking - Page 9

Question

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 1 · 2007-06-27T09:35:14+00:00

>How much freedom do you kids want to give away?

To answer this, in all fairness and honesty, and I think even many smokers can agree, I think smokers should be able to smoke in their own homes (although I encourage them to at least try to keep it away from family members that don't smoke) and in other private places or possibly even in some public places where everyone present agrees it is okay (which is a bit unlikely). I think it is okay to smoke in outdoor areas like on the sidewalk, etc. I think it is fair enough restrict it from public indoor places like restaurants (for the nonsmokers it's already everywhere else as I've allowed it so far anyway). This is not restricting your freedoms it just allows you to share other freedoms with others in the same area. If you're in a restaurant and want to smoke then step outside. Is that fair enough?

Squires 81 Junior Poster · Answer 2 · 2007-06-27T09:42:51+00:00

This is not restricting your freedoms

Not restricting freedoms yet. The law on it's own is not a big deal. I'm against it(I never smoked) because I don't think it is the government business to decide these things. But this law is the beginning of a slippery slope. What gets banned next? With each little thing people will keep saying "it's no big deal" before you know it, all our freedoms are gone.

Ancient Dragon 5,243 Achieved Level 70 Team Colleague Featured Poster · Answer 3 · 2007-06-27T09:44:37+00:00

>. If you're in a restaurant and want to smoke then step outside. Is that fair enough?

No it isn't too much to ask -- nor is it too much to ask a non-smoker to step outside for a few minutes to get some smoke-free air when eating in a resturant that allows smoking. I don't see the difference.

Ancient Dragon 5,243 Achieved Level 70 Team Colleague Featured Poster · Answer 4 · 2007-06-27T09:48:58+00:00

What gets banned next?

The next big ban-push is requiring resturants and fast-food places to remove all trans-fat from the food they prepare. That has already started in some states. Get a nutreation list from McDonalds and you will see that most of their food contains some amount of trans-fat. This will be changed in the future.

joshSCH 1,062 Industrious Poster Banned · Answer 5 · 2007-06-27T09:52:37+00:00

Just finished catching up..

Not restricting freedoms yet. The law on it's own is not a big deal. I'm against it(I never smoked) because I don't think it is the government business to decide these things. But this law is the beginning of a slippery slope. What gets banned next? With each little thing people will keep saying "it's no big deal" before you know it, all our freedoms are gone.

This is the one post that really grabbed my attention.. And he's right.. the government is always gaining more power. But I do think it is their responsibility in this specific scenario b/c it affects the well-being of all Americans.

No it isn't too much to ask -- nor is it too much to ask a non-smoker to step outside for a few minutes to get some smoke-free air when eating in a resturant that allows smoking. I don't see the difference.

Yea, no-smokers will still be affected by the smoke.. You smokers are too biased in your own opinion (Not saying that we aren't..). Smoking harms others, and if you want to do it then do it elsewhere. The fact of the matter is this legislation is taking America by storm.. soon it will be in every state's constitution, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Too bad, you loose. ;)

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 6 · 2007-06-27T09:56:26+00:00

No it isn't too much to ask -- nor is it too much to ask a non-smoker to step outside for a few minutes to get some smoke-free air when eating in a resturant that allows smoking. I don't see the difference.

I do, whereas the smoker experiences some time away from an addiction, the nonsmoker experiences unhealthy air that can even cause his/her death.

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 7 · 2007-06-27T10:06:30+00:00

The fact of the matter is this legislation is taking America by storm.. soon it will be in every state's constitution, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Too bad, you loose. ;)

I just hate legislation that is not based on fact.

Once upon a time, when people understood, this was important.

joshSCH 1,062 Industrious Poster Banned · Answer 8 · 2007-06-27T10:07:47+00:00

Hmm.. I think that was me who said that, not Christina.. nice try though lol ;)

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 9 · 2007-06-27T10:08:13+00:00

the nonsmoker experiences unhealthy air that can even cause his/her death.

POINT TO THE PROOF!

Please, for God's sake. I'm begging you people!

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 10 · 2007-06-27T10:08:35+00:00

Isn't legislation supposed to benefit the people? And don't we live in a democracy where majority rules? When legislation comes up in favor of the majority and you don't like it then that's kinda too bad. One could say that's a bad aspect of democracy.

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 11 · 2007-06-27T10:09:15+00:00

POINT TO THE PROOF!
Please, for God's sake. I'm begging you people!

For one, Christopher Reeve's wife.

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 12 · 2007-06-27T10:10:10+00:00

Isn't legislation supposed to benefit the people?

Not exactly.

And don't we live in a democracy where majority rules? When legislation comes up in favor of the majority and you don't like it then that's kinda too bad. One could say that's a bad aspect of democracy.

Not exactly.

Where have y'all be learnin'?

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 13 · 2007-06-27T10:10:34+00:00

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c

16 Years Ago

For one, Christopher Reeve's wife.

For what?!

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 14 · 2007-06-27T10:11:05+00:00

Not exactly.
Not exactly.
Where have y'all be learnin'?

Expand on that some.

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 15 · 2007-06-27T10:11:36+00:00

For what?!

She died from second hand smoke and never smoked in her life.

joshSCH 1,062 Industrious Poster Banned · Answer 16 · 2007-06-27T10:12:25+00:00

Dude Dave quit trying to back up tobacco. Most people disagree with you therefore you lose. That's how democracy works.. Lifes a bi***, get on with it.

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 17 · 2007-06-27T10:12:38+00:00

She died from second hand smoke and never smoked in her life.

And the proof is ...?

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 18 · 2007-06-27T10:13:27+00:00

And the proof is ...?

The proof is she's effing dead.

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 19 · 2007-06-27T10:13:39+00:00

Dude Dave quit acting so pissed off.. Most people disagree with you therefore you lose. That's how democracy works.. Lifes a bi***, get on with it.

Hey! Cool! Josh want slavery again.

Can any of you young'uns come up with an argument?

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 20 · 2007-06-27T10:14:20+00:00

The proof is she's effing dead.

And the cause of death is listed as "second hand smoke exposure"?

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 21 · 2007-06-27T10:14:58+00:00

Hey! Cool! Josh want slavery again.
Can any of you young'uns come up with an argument?

I'm sure the majority of Americans would disagree with that. Game, set, match.

joshSCH 1,062 Industrious Poster Banned · Answer 22 · 2007-06-27T10:14:59+00:00

Hey! Cool! Josh want slavery again.
Can any of you young'uns come up with an argument?

huh?

Squires 81 Junior Poster · Answer 23 · 2007-06-27T10:24:45+00:00

But I do think it is their responsibility in this specific scenario b/c it affects the well-being of all Americans.

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.

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 24 · 2007-06-27T10:24:48+00:00

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.

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 25 · 2007-06-27T10:24:57+00:00

I'm sure the majority of Americans would disagree with that. Game, set, match.

huh?

A Constitutional amendment was made to help circumvent the tyranny of the majority.

They didn't teach that either?

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 26 · 2007-06-27T10:25:46+00:00

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.

I guess now we should let murder be legal because the ban on murder is for the good of everyone which is a doctrine that you seem to disagree with.

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 27 · 2007-06-27T10:28:26+00:00

A Constitutional amendment was made to help circumvent the tyranny of the majority.
They didn't teach that either?

Put it this way. If they brought back slavery there would be a revolution, led by me. I wouldn't fall easily. I would even have the larger portion of the military on my side and many politicians.

And that wasn't an amendment, it was within the articles of the Constitution I'm pretty sure. And besides, where's your proof?

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 28 · 2007-06-27T10:30:54+00:00

Oh, kids.

Some funny quotes:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." --- Nikita Kruschev, USSR

Dave Sinkula 2,398 long time no c Team Colleague · Answer 29 · 2007-06-27T10:32:56+00:00

And that wasn't an amendment, it was within the articles of the Constitution I'm pretty sure. And besides, where's your proof?

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

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 30 · 2007-06-27T10:34:00+00:00

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