Plus, smoking is morally wrong, for it harms the body you were given as a birthright.
Red meat is morally wrong. So are fast-food and delivery pizza. Coffee and alcohol are also both morally wrong. Working a management or MOD-position in retail is morally wrong. Working as an air-traffic controller is morally wrong. Boston Cream Pie is morally wrong. Or maybe that's a really stupid grounds to decide something is morally wrong.
Okay, here's one for the smokers: I can't figure out why other nicotine-delivery systems haven't taken off. Bongs? gum? patches? needle-to-the-eyeball? There are sooooo many ways to get the drug into your system, and most of them manage to avoid all the other nasties that come with the smoke (like, its not really the nicotine that gives you Teh Cancer so much as the smoke particles and weird additives etc). They also manage to avoid the area-effect that pisses so many people off. So what's the deal? Doesn't make sense to me.
Well for me smoking helps me in social situations. If I don't have a cig and get into an awkward conversation I tend stutter and get fidgety. Also when you use different methods of nicotine delivery it doesn't feel the same. I guess the best way for me to compare it would be if you are in a hospital with one of feeding tubes vs Eating regularly, with the tube you get food but its nowhere near as satisfying. Smoking cravings (for me anyway) feel very similar to being hungry (hence the analogy). I hope that makes sense.
I guess, but it still seems like a lot of the criticism of smoking would disappear if it was just done differently. I mean, "you can't do shots at a bus stop" hasn't really hampered drinking :P
also people please. trim the quote trees. Its very simple.
Fool, don't you grasp the essential economic difference between 1) instituting jail time as a consequence for selling a totally prohibited product (which the state must then destroy) and 2) instituting property confiscation (which the state may then sell) as a consequence for selling a product without permission of the state? Is it really that complex?
Fool, don't you grasp the essential economic difference between 1) instituting jail time as a consequence for selling a totally prohibited product (which the state must then destroy) and 2) instituting property confiscation (which the state may then sell) as a consequence for selling a product without permission of the state? Is it really that complex?
EDIT: trimT
I understand that even though those are penalties for selling of shrooms I can still buy shrooms pretty much whenever I want.
Edit: Not that that's very often, or more than once ever so far, but I could go buy some today if I had any interest in doing so.
Fool, don't you grasp the essential economic difference between 1) instituting jail time as a consequence for selling a totally prohibited product (which the state must then destroy) and 2) instituting property confiscation (which the state may then sell) as a consequence for selling a product without permission of the state? Is it really that complex?
EDIT: trimT
First off, I dont understand why im such a fool. That's alright though. Secondly, I understand the difference completely. But if you think that the state will spend the time, money, and resources to track down the black market cigarette vendors, you are out of your mind. See how well this "War on drugs" is doing? I cant wait to see the California "War on Smokes." In the end, California and its stance on smoking is just an extreme example of how I feel state governments are overstepping thier boundaries when it comes to personal freedoms.
Fool, don't you grasp the essential economic difference between 1) instituting jail time as a consequence for selling a totally prohibited product (which the state must then destroy) and 2) instituting property confiscation (which the state may then sell) as a consequence for selling a product without permission of the state? Is it really that complex?
EDIT: trimT
First off, I dont understand why im such a fool. That's alright though. Secondly, I understand the difference completely. But if you think that the state will spend the time, money, and resources to track down the black market cigarette vendors, you are out of your mind. See how well this "War on drugs" is doing? I cant wait to see the California "War on Smokes." In the end, California and its stance on smoking is just an extreme example of how I feel state governments are overstepping thier boundaries when it comes to personal freedoms.
The state will (and does) spend the time, money and resources because long-term, it stands to make a profit. Spend more cash now on cops and expanding the Board of Equalization, pay for it with the short-term profits derived from resale of confiscated cigarettes and taxes thereon, and even if you suffer a temporary, mild net loss, you'll reap big dividends later in the form of reduced pressure on the overworked state health-care system.
That's the reasoning anyway. And last I checked, California was doing pretty well in the "economic reasoning" department. Like, twice as well as the next-closest competitor, New York. New York, incidentally, has the next highest state tax on cigarettes.
EDIT: This is beginning to stray off topic, I think. Better go back to talking about the workplace, and smoking therein.
Fool, don't you grasp the essential economic difference between 1) instituting jail time as a consequence for selling a totally prohibited product (which the state must then destroy) and 2) instituting property confiscation (which the state may then sell) as a consequence for selling a product without permission of the state? Is it really that complex?
EDIT: trimT
First off, I dont understand why im such a fool. That's alright though. Secondly, I understand the difference completely. But if you think that the state will spend the time, money, and resources to track down the black market cigarette vendors, you are out of your mind. See how well this "War on drugs" is doing? I cant wait to see the California "War on Smokes." In the end, California and its stance on smoking is just an extreme example of how I feel state governments are overstepping thier boundaries when it comes to personal freedoms.
The state will spend the time, money and resources because long-term, it stands to make a profit. Spend more cash now on cops and expanding the Board of Equalization, pay for it with the short-term profits derived from resale of confiscated cigarettes and taxes thereon, and even if you suffer a temporary, mild net loss, you'll reap big dividends later in the form of reduced pressure on the overworked state health-care system.
That's the reasoning anyway. And last I checked, California was doing pretty well in the "economic reasoning" department. Like, twice as well as the next-closest competitor, New York. New York, incidentally, has the next highest state tax on cigarettes.
EDIT: This is beginning to stray off topic, I think. Better go back to talking about the workplace, and smoking therein.
True about New York, they are far worse. It just so happens that you brought up California, so I ran with it.
Okay, here's one for the smokers: I can't figure out why other nicotine-delivery systems haven't taken off. Bongs? gum? patches? needle-to-the-eyeball? There are sooooo many ways to get the drug into your system, and most of them manage to avoid all the other nasties that come with the smoke (like, its not really the nicotine that gives you Teh Cancer so much as the smoke particles and weird additives etc). They also manage to avoid the area-effect that pisses so many people off. So what's the deal? Doesn't make sense to me.
Well for me smoking helps me in social situations. If I don't have a cig and get into an awkward conversation I tend stutter and get fidgety. Also when you use different methods of nicotine delivery it doesn't feel the same. I guess the best way for me to compare it would be if you are in a hospital with one of feeding tubes vs Eating regularly, with the tube you get food but its nowhere near as satisfying. Smoking cravings (for me anyway) feel very similar to being hungry (hence the analogy). I hope that makes sense.
I guess, but it still seems like a lot of the criticism of smoking would disappear if it was just done differently. I mean, "you can't do shots at a bus stop" hasn't really hampered drinking :P
also people please. trim the quote trees. Its very simple.
I see your point, but drinking although it can be most of the time is not an addiction. Smoking is in most cases except for when you are just beginning of course.
The line that companies are starting to cross now is the one where they start telling me I can't smoke on my time, outside of their motherfucking business. But I guess that's not really contestable since you can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock, so whatever.
True about New York, they are far worse. It just so happens that you brought up California, so I ran with it.
I'm an immigrant to California, and thus feel something of the immigrant's excessive pride in their new land. But, um, we should say something about workplaces. Ummm.......
I work at the University of California, and you can still smoke anywhere on campus, as long as you're at least 20 feet from any doorway to any building.
The line that companies are starting to cross now is the one where they start telling me I can't smoke on my time, outside of their motherfucking business. But I guess that's not really contestable since you can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock, so whatever.
You can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock?! Where the heck is that?
The line that companies are starting to cross now is the one where they start telling me I can't smoke on my time, outside of their motherfucking business. But I guess that's not really contestable since you can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock, so whatever.
What if your employer is providing your healthcare? If they can save money by having less people smoke then all the smokers standing outside on their breaks lighting up are big red dollar signs.
The line that companies are starting to cross now is the one where they start telling me I can't smoke on my time, outside of their motherfucking business. But I guess that's not really contestable since you can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock, so whatever.
What if your employer is providing your healthcare? If they can save money by having less people smoke then all the smokers standing outside on their breaks lighting up are big red dollar signs.
It doesn't matter, as long as they don't discriminate based on age, race, sex or religion they can legally fire people for playing Zelda if they want, so long as the employee has been given a document stating that they will fire him if he plays Zelda.
The line that companies are starting to cross now is the one where they start telling me I can't smoke on my time, outside of their motherfucking business. But I guess that's not really contestable since you can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock, so whatever.
What if your employer is providing your healthcare? If they can save money by having less people smoke then all the smokers standing outside on their breaks lighting up are big red dollar signs.
Hey, maybe they should start enforcing a strict nutritional regime and a mandatory exercise program too.
The line that companies are starting to cross now is the one where they start telling me I can't smoke on my time, outside of their motherfucking business. But I guess that's not really contestable since you can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock, so whatever.
What if your employer is providing your healthcare? If they can save money by having less people smoke then all the smokers standing outside on their breaks lighting up are big red dollar signs.
It doesn't matter, as long as they don't discriminate based on age, race, sex or religion they can legally fire people for playing Zelda if they want, so long as the employee has been given a document stating that they will fire him if he plays Zelda.
That's going too far. What have they got against Zelda, the bastards?
The line that companies are starting to cross now is the one where they start telling me I can't smoke on my time, outside of their motherfucking business. But I guess that's not really contestable since you can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock, so whatever.
What if your employer is providing your healthcare? If they can save money by having less people smoke then all the smokers standing outside on their breaks lighting up are big red dollar signs.
It doesn't matter, as long as they don't discriminate based on age, race, sex or religion they can legally fire people for playing Zelda if they want, so long as the employee has been given a document stating that they will fire him if he plays Zelda.
That's going too far. What have they got against Zelda, the bastards?
Banning smoking to protect people from themselves is ridiculous. Banning smoking in certain environments to protect workers from exposure to health risks is as sensible as any other health and safety measurement enforced by law in the workplace.
Also, America is only the land of the free in so far as you are free from colonial rule and are free to choose your own government rather than have the United Kingdom ram theirs down your throat. Seriously, if it was 'the land of the absolutely free to do whatever the fuck I want to whomever I want' why do you still have prisons?Or laws for that matter? 'MAH FREEDOMS!' is a retarded argument against government legislations.
Edit: Actually, I'm not even sure if banning smoking to protect people form themselves is completely ridiculous. There's precedence that has done good things.
I don't think smoking should be banned. If you want to smoke, do so.
Just don't do it around people who don't want to do so.
I really don't see what is so difficult in that. I don't do some...eh, personal stuff around other people because it would make them very uncomfortable. Smokers should do the same.
You know, theres some guys in my classes that are seriously not great about the personal hygiene. It's one of the hazards of the engineering program. Should we be able to ban them? They make me and others very uncomfortable.
Sadly, people who don't wash themselves for weeks are like some smokers, apparently don't care if they make someone uncomfortable.
I'm pretty sure playing music extremely loud on public (and even at your own home) is banned. It makes some people really uncomfortable. I really don't see why the same shouldn't apply to smoking, especially when it has negative health effects.
If I came next to someone in bar and started playing radio on full volume next to someone's ears, I would be a fucking uncaring asshole. If I would start shouting right at your face, I would be an asshole. I consider someone who sits right next to me and starts blowing horrible-smelling smoke right into my face a fucking asshole too. If someone starts something, I shouldn't be suffering from it.
The whole "If you don't like me smoking next to you then go somewhere else" argument is retarded. Why do smokers get a free pass of being uncaring assholes? Why should I go somewhere else because a smoker chose to poison the air in that specific spot?
Really it comes down to being considerate. If the smoker is outside smoking first, I say to bad for you. You can choose to stand somewhere else. If not, you are still being a fucking uncaring asshole. If your outside and a smoker lights up near you, ask him to move and he should. If not he is the uncaring asshole. You both have a right to be happy yes? Instead of fighting over the shit, why cant people just be considerate of each others rights?
I'm not going to chase off anyone from their spot if they were there first, but I really hate it when I am sitting somewhere and some tard comes next to me and starts smoking.
Frankly, I don't really have a problem with banning smoking in most areas. However, are there exceptions to the rule? Personally, I absolutely love hookah bars, and people go there specifically to smoke. Cigar bars are another example. When people think "smoke" they specifically think "cigs," and not much else.
Since I'm strangely petty, I am willing to go against the ruling if hookah bars are banned without any thought. :P
nah I'm in the process of quitting. Just found out that my family is expanding.
Gratz from not being one of those parents who force their children to breathe smoke because of their own choice to do so. I had a friend whose mom smoked all the time, even at home next to her kids. Every time she blew it into my direction I wanted to go and punch her.
I don't think one year is enough time to draw a valid conclusion.
What needs to happen next year for the conclusion to be valid? Does it need to have another big drop or does it just have to not go back up?
The Scottish news specifically drawing this conclusion leads me to believe that there is more to it than a couple of disparate statistics. When I first heard the news I was like 'As much as I want to believe that, I don't necessarily see the connection' but I'd imagine they are just delivering watered down news from a more in-depth survey and scientific analysis than the rather simplistic conclusion suggests. I mean, I got a job this year. Was that a result of there being a ban on smoking? Was the ban on smoking the cause of our terrible summer this year and all the flooding in England? No, and nobody is claiming it was.
At which point the other bars would then proceed to allow smoking. At which point neither patrons nor bartenders would have a choice of a smoke-free environment. Also, you'd then have smokers and non-smokers in the same place.
You didn't really think this through, did you?
Also, once nearly every bar, restaurant, and airline decides to allow smoking, your argument that "oh, people can just work elsewhere" will start to fall apart as well.
And in what tobacco loving world do you imagine that all businesses will start to arbitrarily all allow smoking. For no good reason. Is this, like... the tobacco version of the domino theory?
Not all businesses. But all businesses in certain sectors. For instance, bars. I know that within driving distance of here there exists not a single non-smoking bar or casino. We've had this discussion before here...basically the way the economics work is that if smoking is allowed nearly all bars will allow smoking. I say "nearly" because in a metro area of a million people, you might get a couple that don't. In an area like this, you'll get none.
The only way you'll get any bars to be nonsmoking is to make all of them nonsmoking. That, or alternately you could issue a limited number of "smoking permits," but that still wouldn't be good enough for people like you so why bother?
Ah, all right. You're right. Only rights specifically stated in the constitution count. Nothing is implied.
Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
*snip*
Hey, mildly compelling. But then you've also go the 10th amendment, which seems to suggest that powers not given to the federal government are reserved by the states. Since it's the states choosing to regulate business in this way, I'm not seeing the issue. While the 9th might be interpreted as allowing one to "run my business the way I damn well please," I'd suggest that it doesn't allow you to harm others while doing so. Hence the power of the states to regulate business such that they don't do undue harm...whether to employees, patrons, or bystanders.
'MAH FREEDOMS!' is a retarded argument against government legislations.
No, it's an excellent argument against government legislation. It's just stupid to only consider one argument, regardless of the situation. We don't decide that people shouldn't have a right to own nukes because "MAH FREEDOMS" is a stupid argument. We decide it because "MAH FREEDOMS" doesn't outweigh "OTHAHS SAFETIES" in that particular case.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah the idea of liberties is that you have the freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't impede on your fellow man's own rights. In the case of smoking, people other than the person smoking are being affected, thereby affecting their rights to "life."
Smoking at home, smoking outside, smoking at designated areas. Those things are well and good, as long as nonsmokers can pursue their own goals without being affected by the smoke. Unfortunately that often translates to non-smoking policies in ALL indoor public places.
Fortunately, that gives smokers a reason to leave their crappy cubicles during the day and go outside. I consider that a win for smokers.
Or get rained on, in Washington you have to be at least 50 feet from a door to smoke. Which is nice, I can enter the mall and not have to go through the wall of teen "I am angry at my parents and reject their notion of health" smoker bitches.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
'MAH FREEDOMS!' is a retarded argument against government legislations.
No, it's an excellent argument against government legislation. It's just stupid to only consider one argument, regardless of the situation. We don't decide that people shouldn't have a right to own nukes because "MAH FREEDOMS" is a stupid argument. We decide it because "MAH FREEDOMS" doesn't outweigh "OTHAHS SAFETIES" in that particular case.
Fair point. It's the assumption that the concept of 'freedom' seems to outweigh all other considerations in some people's minds. The USA isn't an anarchy.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
With you there mastman, or get burned. I got burned (and had burn marks on my shirt) from going to the Fenix because in a tight dancing situation people feel the need to light up.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In my city, they just banned smoking on bar patios. It's now illegal to have a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other.
I'm not even a smoker but that's wrong. For so many people it's just so natural and wonderful for them to smoke and drink a beer and banning it outside is not cool IMO.
speaking of which, Miami University (Ohio) banned smoking on all its property. Outside and in. Starts January 1st.
I don't think one year is enough time to draw a valid conclusion.
What needs to happen next year for the conclusion to be valid? Does it need to have another big drop or does it just have to not go back up?
The Scottish news specifically drawing this conclusion leads me to believe that there is more to it than a couple of disparate statistics. When I first heard the news I was like 'As much as I want to believe that, I don't necessarily see the connection' but I'd imagine they are just delivering watered down news from a more in-depth survey and scientific analysis than the rather simplistic conclusion suggests. I mean, I got a job this year. Was that a result of there being a ban on smoking? Was the ban on smoking the cause of our terrible summer this year and all the flooding in England? No, and nobody is claiming it was.
It's hardly the news drawing a sketchy conclusion from disperate facts:
"The primary aim of smoking bans is to protect non-smokers from the effects of passive smoking.
"Previous studies have not been able to confirm whether or not that has been achieved. What we were able to show is that among people who are non-smokers there was a 20% reduction in heart attack admissions.
"This confirms that the legislation has been effective in helping non-smokers."
You getting a job is probably not affected to a great degree by the amount of primary or second hand smoke you inhale. The percentage chance of suffering a heart attack is incontrovertibly linked with smoking. The way in which people smoke has been profoundly altered. there has been an (expected) change in heart attack rates, it's not exactly reaching.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I don't think one year is enough time to draw a valid conclusion.
What needs to happen next year for the conclusion to be valid? Does it need to have another big drop or does it just have to not go back up?
The Scottish news specifically drawing this conclusion leads me to believe that there is more to it than a couple of disparate statistics. When I first heard the news I was like 'As much as I want to believe that, I don't necessarily see the connection' but I'd imagine they are just delivering watered down news from a more in-depth survey and scientific analysis than the rather simplistic conclusion suggests. I mean, I got a job this year. Was that a result of there being a ban on smoking? Was the ban on smoking the cause of our terrible summer this year and all the flooding in England? No, and nobody is claiming it was.
It's hardly the news drawing a sketchy conclusion from disperate facts:
"The primary aim of smoking bans is to protect non-smokers from the effects of passive smoking.
"Previous studies have not been able to confirm whether or not that has been achieved. What we were able to show is that among people who are non-smokers there was a 20% reduction in heart attack admissions.
"This confirms that the legislation has been effective in helping non-smokers."
You getting a job is probably not affected to a great degree by the amount of primary or second hand smoke you inhale. The percentage chance of suffering a heart attack is incontrovertibly linked with smoking. The way in which people smoke has been profoundly altered. there has been an (expected) change in heart attack rates, it's not exactly reaching.
That actually seems...less incontrovertible than I was suspecting. But what do I care, I'm pro smoking ban.
Posts
Red meat is morally wrong. So are fast-food and delivery pizza. Coffee and alcohol are also both morally wrong. Working a management or MOD-position in retail is morally wrong. Working as an air-traffic controller is morally wrong. Boston Cream Pie is morally wrong. Or maybe that's a really stupid grounds to decide something is morally wrong.
I guess, but it still seems like a lot of the criticism of smoking would disappear if it was just done differently. I mean, "you can't do shots at a bus stop" hasn't really hampered drinking :P
also people please. trim the quote trees. Its very simple.
I'll let you know when the nicotine is what I'm after.
Fool, don't you grasp the essential economic difference between 1) instituting jail time as a consequence for selling a totally prohibited product (which the state must then destroy) and 2) instituting property confiscation (which the state may then sell) as a consequence for selling a product without permission of the state? Is it really that complex?
EDIT: trimT
I understand that even though those are penalties for selling of shrooms I can still buy shrooms pretty much whenever I want.
Edit: Not that that's very often, or more than once ever so far, but I could go buy some today if I had any interest in doing so.
First off, I dont understand why im such a fool. That's alright though. Secondly, I understand the difference completely. But if you think that the state will spend the time, money, and resources to track down the black market cigarette vendors, you are out of your mind. See how well this "War on drugs" is doing? I cant wait to see the California "War on Smokes." In the end, California and its stance on smoking is just an extreme example of how I feel state governments are overstepping thier boundaries when it comes to personal freedoms.
The state will (and does) spend the time, money and resources because long-term, it stands to make a profit. Spend more cash now on cops and expanding the Board of Equalization, pay for it with the short-term profits derived from resale of confiscated cigarettes and taxes thereon, and even if you suffer a temporary, mild net loss, you'll reap big dividends later in the form of reduced pressure on the overworked state health-care system.
That's the reasoning anyway. And last I checked, California was doing pretty well in the "economic reasoning" department. Like, twice as well as the next-closest competitor, New York. New York, incidentally, has the next highest state tax on cigarettes.
EDIT: This is beginning to stray off topic, I think. Better go back to talking about the workplace, and smoking therein.
True about New York, they are far worse. It just so happens that you brought up California, so I ran with it.
I see your point, but drinking although it can be most of the time is not an addiction. Smoking is in most cases except for when you are just beginning of course.
I'm an immigrant to California, and thus feel something of the immigrant's excessive pride in their new land. But, um, we should say something about workplaces. Ummm.......
I work at the University of California, and you can still smoke anywhere on campus, as long as you're at least 20 feet from any doorway to any building.
You can fire someone for getting pregnant out of wedlock?! Where the heck is that?
It doesn't matter, as long as they don't discriminate based on age, race, sex or religion they can legally fire people for playing Zelda if they want, so long as the employee has been given a document stating that they will fire him if he plays Zelda.
That's going too far. What have they got against Zelda, the bastards?
Nothing yet, there's still smokers to demonize.
The gods give me courage. ;-)
Also, America is only the land of the free in so far as you are free from colonial rule and are free to choose your own government rather than have the United Kingdom ram theirs down your throat. Seriously, if it was 'the land of the absolutely free to do whatever the fuck I want to whomever I want' why do you still have prisons?Or laws for that matter? 'MAH FREEDOMS!' is a retarded argument against government legislations.
Edit: Actually, I'm not even sure if banning smoking to protect people form themselves is completely ridiculous. There's precedence that has done good things.
I'm not going to chase off anyone from their spot if they were there first, but I really hate it when I am sitting somewhere and some tard comes next to me and starts smoking.
Since I'm strangely petty, I am willing to go against the ruling if hookah bars are banned without any thought. :P
Yep.
I don't think one year is enough time to draw a valid conclusion.
Gratz from not being one of those parents who force their children to breathe smoke because of their own choice to do so. I had a friend whose mom smoked all the time, even at home next to her kids. Every time she blew it into my direction I wanted to go and punch her.
What needs to happen next year for the conclusion to be valid? Does it need to have another big drop or does it just have to not go back up?
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
The Scottish news specifically drawing this conclusion leads me to believe that there is more to it than a couple of disparate statistics. When I first heard the news I was like 'As much as I want to believe that, I don't necessarily see the connection' but I'd imagine they are just delivering watered down news from a more in-depth survey and scientific analysis than the rather simplistic conclusion suggests. I mean, I got a job this year. Was that a result of there being a ban on smoking? Was the ban on smoking the cause of our terrible summer this year and all the flooding in England? No, and nobody is claiming it was.
Not all businesses. But all businesses in certain sectors. For instance, bars. I know that within driving distance of here there exists not a single non-smoking bar or casino. We've had this discussion before here...basically the way the economics work is that if smoking is allowed nearly all bars will allow smoking. I say "nearly" because in a metro area of a million people, you might get a couple that don't. In an area like this, you'll get none.
The only way you'll get any bars to be nonsmoking is to make all of them nonsmoking. That, or alternately you could issue a limited number of "smoking permits," but that still wouldn't be good enough for people like you so why bother?
Hey, mildly compelling. But then you've also go the 10th amendment, which seems to suggest that powers not given to the federal government are reserved by the states. Since it's the states choosing to regulate business in this way, I'm not seeing the issue. While the 9th might be interpreted as allowing one to "run my business the way I damn well please," I'd suggest that it doesn't allow you to harm others while doing so. Hence the power of the states to regulate business such that they don't do undue harm...whether to employees, patrons, or bystanders.
So no.
No, it's an excellent argument against government legislation. It's just stupid to only consider one argument, regardless of the situation. We don't decide that people shouldn't have a right to own nukes because "MAH FREEDOMS" is a stupid argument. We decide it because "MAH FREEDOMS" doesn't outweigh "OTHAHS SAFETIES" in that particular case.
Smoking at home, smoking outside, smoking at designated areas. Those things are well and good, as long as nonsmokers can pursue their own goals without being affected by the smoke. Unfortunately that often translates to non-smoking policies in ALL indoor public places.
Fortunately, that gives smokers a reason to leave their crappy cubicles during the day and go outside. I consider that a win for smokers.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
The reduction in heart-attacks probably wasn't due to a reduction in smoking but rather an increase in the number of people getting a bit of exercise.
unless it's winter. It's always fun watching the smokers freeze their asses off at winter.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Fair point. It's the assumption that the concept of 'freedom' seems to outweigh all other considerations in some people's minds. The USA isn't an anarchy.
B.net: Kusanku
Fact: There hasn't been enough linking of biased articles.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm not even a smoker but that's wrong. For so many people it's just so natural and wonderful for them to smoke and drink a beer and banning it outside is not cool IMO.
speaking of which, Miami University (Ohio) banned smoking on all its property. Outside and in. Starts January 1st.
B.net: Kusanku
It's hardly the news drawing a sketchy conclusion from disperate facts:
You getting a job is probably not affected to a great degree by the amount of primary or second hand smoke you inhale. The percentage chance of suffering a heart attack is incontrovertibly linked with smoking. The way in which people smoke has been profoundly altered. there has been an (expected) change in heart attack rates, it's not exactly reaching.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Yeah, that's definitely taking things too far.
I swear the mentality of some people is that if you can smell a hint of smoke you'll catch cancer.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
That actually seems...less incontrovertible than I was suspecting. But what do I care, I'm pro smoking ban.