13-08-2003 05:46									#61
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by St Leo Smoking kills others. Ban it. Alcohol kills. Ban it. Chocolate doesn't kill. Keep it legal. Pot doesn't kill anyone. Legalize it.

Chocolate is toxic to pet dogs and pet cats -- so we have to ban chocolate now, too.

	13-08-2003 06:12									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My theory of smoking is this:

I am a smoker, if you don't want to inhale my second hand smoke...get away from me.

If I am smoking, I will stay away from you.

If you think I'm unpleasant because I smoke, you're wrong. I'm unpleasant because I have to go outside in either 0 degree weather or 100 degree weather to smoke.

Anybody outside for that period of time becomes unpleasant.

I won't go near you while I'm smoking, so do me the courtesy of not coming to b!tch about it while I am smoking.

ACK!

	13-08-2003 06:17									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by St Leo Smoking kills others. Ban it. Alcohol kills. Ban it. Chocolate doesn't kill. Keep it legal. Pot doesn't kill anyone. Legalize it.

Pot smoke is 5 times as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, so it definitely should not be legalized if cigarettes are to be banned.

	13-08-2003 06:22									#64
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

GePap, I'm not arguing whether it is legal or the government CAN do it. I know they can.. what I'm saying is that they SHOULD NOT do it. Sure I'm going to follow the law, but what I'm saying is that I think it is a bad law (not that they don't have the power).

	13-08-2003 06:30									#65
	Tired of ads?

You know what gets me? Go to a Paramont Studios theme park. They allow smoking throughout their parks, even the kids areas. On a summer day when there is no breeze the odor of cigarette smoke is oppressively thick everywhere. They might as weel name their Kiddie ride area "Asthma-land".

	13-08-2003 07:35									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui GePap, I'm not arguing whether it is legal or the government CAN do it. I know they can.. what I'm saying is that they SHOULD NOT do it. Sure I'm going to follow the law, but what I'm saying is that I think it is a bad law (not that they don't have the power).

And what justification do you have for this judgement? That if people want to do somehting, they should be allowed to do it? Obviously that test fails when it comes to something like murder. So then you add"That doesn;t hurt anyone". BUt what constitutes hurting someone? HOw does a woman going down the street with her breats bared hurt anyone? Must it be physical injury? What about mental injury? What constitutes mental injury? And what about actions that statistically increase the chances someone will die? Do we ignore statistics? Or do we set a standard limit, a test, of which level of greater statistical danger mean endangering someone else?

This is the problem I see with claiming that somehow it is fundamentally wrong to make this law, or even if not fundamentally wrong, still somehow immoral. I knoiw you are not a libertarian in the mold of others, so how do you justify endless other similar laws and not this? Do you do like MIng and say "BUt smoking is not illegal"?

BUt what MIng forgets to say is that drinking is not illegal either, but both can be regulated. You can;t walk around drinking in the street, and conversely, now you can't smoke inside. Both still remain legal activities, but curtailed.

	13-08-2003 07:38									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Actually I am more like Ming and say it isn't illegal. And since it isn't illegal the restrictions placed upon it (AND alcohol) are wrong. I really don't see why people can't have an open container outside. I mean, will it really hurt much more when they drink it all in 5 seconds inside and then run back out?

If you want to make it illegal, make it illegal, just don't make it legal and say, but we don't like it, and are going to put all this crap on it.

	13-08-2003 07:42									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Having sex between two consenting adults is not illegal either, and yet I can;t do it on the street in open daylight. Pieing (spell?) is legal, but I can;t do it on the street. Eating is legal, but I can;t do it anywhere I want.

Just becase it is legal does not mean it can not be regulated. Speech can be regulated, voting can be regulated. If those fundamentals cornerstones of political freedom can be regulated, drinking and smoking sure as hell can as well.

	13-08-2003 07:47									#69
	Suffering from ads?

I can see putting limits on doing things in the public sphere (I still think the public drinking laws are stupid though), but I really am not for putting limits in private businesses, etc.

Speech and voting are not regulated in private areas are they? I mean, you can have a Nazi bar.

If a business wants to have a sex/orgy area, I say go for it. If they have an area to pee on the floor, fine by them. I think they should be able to set the rules of their own places (as long as people know about them) and if you don't like it, then you can go.

Sure they CAN be restricted, doesn't mean they HAVE to or SHOULD be restricted (we are back to that again).

	13-08-2003 07:54									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I can see putting limits on doing things in the public sphere (I still think the public drinking laws are stupid though), but I really am not for putting limits in private businesses, etc. Speech and voting are not regulated in private areas are they? I mean, you can have a Nazi bar.

A bar, by its very nature, is a public place, even if privately owned. That is why the state can say to them that they can;t segregate customers by race, even if a private club can.

quote: If a business wants to have a sex/orgy area, I say go for it. If they have an area to pee on the floor, fine by them. I think they should be able to set the rules of their own places (as long as people know about them) and if you don't like it, then you can go.

Well, the majority of the public does not agree, and since this is a democracy. And since having public sex or public urination are not in any way fundamental freedoms, or political in nature, not, you do not have a right to thoseactions whatsoever.

quote: Sure they CAN be restricted, doesn't mean they HAVE to or SHOULD be restricted (we are back to that again).

I can see plenty of reasons for why sucha ban is OK policy. Personally, while i do not like smoking, having been in Europe, it does not bother me as much. But the bans have some logic behind them, so I have no problem. Anyone who quits smoking due to this made the right choice.

	13-08-2003 08:08									#71
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Hey Gepap... do you drive a car? are you one of the the hypocrites? Is it ok for me to breath your polution?

It's all PC crap... that's ALL it is.

	13-08-2003 08:39									#72
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ming Hey Gepap... do you drive a car? are you one of the the hypocrites? Is it ok for me to breath your polution? It's all PC crap... that's ALL it is.

No, i don;t own a car, nor do I drive. So, woops!

Now, if you can fundamentally alter the internal combustion engine, fine by me, I am sure you will make loqads of money. There is a fundamental difference though between the side output of a thing created for transportation (and the gov. already takes steps to lower the pollution from cars) and a paper roll with weeds inside meant simply to be inserted in the mouth and set on fire. The world, the economy, society would be fundamentally changed without automobiles in all their forms. While the end of smoking would entail some economic change, it would be minimal by comparison, and society would not be adversely affected.

BUt of course we are not even talking about the end of smoking, but a regulation on it. If I walk the streets I still have to inhale smoklers polluition, just as I would inhale car's pollution. Inide though, now I am safe from both.

	13-08-2003 10:21									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You aren't safe from polution indoors... dream on

So you don't drive in cars ever? Because every time you do... you polute the air I breath. Cars can be created to be non poluting... so again, this a matter of PC crap only. People want their big cars... but now a majority don't like smokers... PC BABY

	13-08-2003 12:16									#74
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap I have to go with Che. Studies have shown moderate consumtion of alcohol can have some health benefits. Alcohol at least has calories which you can sue to burn of, and moderate use of alcohol does not harm anyone in your vicinity. None of these things apply to cigarretes, cigars, or pipes. They impose a large burden on health services , and can hurt not only those doing it but those nearby. aybe, if when you decide to smoke you also signed a waiver disqualifying you for vaiorus forms of health insdurance and government health programs like medicare and medicaid, so that you and you alone paid for the ceonsequences of your action,s fine. BUt if tax dollars go towards taking care of you, then the state has a right ot regulate certain behaviors.

I'll assume that the waiver also absolves me from paying taxes to support those crappy programs as well. I'd be happy to oblige. Your point also assumes that smokers consume more dollars in governmentally mandated health programs than they save in governmentally mandated retirement and health programs (and for that matter the amount that smokers provide in taxes). We're all going to die, some of us are going to do it earlier than others and save uncle sam money on both our retirement payments as well as the inevitably rising number of ailments as we age. I've never seen a serious cost benefit analysis of the impact of smoking across the board, but I am familiar with health care accounting, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see smoking providing a net gain in government revenues.

	14-08-2003 04:02									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Smoking kills. It serves no purpose. Everything about smoking is bad for you. Ban it. Drinking alocohol kills. It serves no purpose. Everything about drinking alcohol is bad for you. Ban it. In the end, it's basically the same. Drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco both kill and are both there to get you buzzed.

BS. Alcohol does serve other purposes. Not everything about alcohol is bad for you. Some doctors say that a glass of wine a day helps your heart. You won't find a doctor who says the same about smoking.
You can try to dance your way around this but in the end you and i both know that the two do not even compare.
Smoking kills and that's all it does.

	14-08-2003 04:53									#76
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: You can try to dance your way around this but in the end you and i both know that the two do not even compare. Smoking kills and that's all it does.

What Bullshit. Of course they compare. Alcohol kills you just as fast as smoking... if you don't believe me look at the livers of people who have been drinking their entire lives. Alcohol is a POISON. Just because it may help in other areas doesn't make it any less of a poison.

And if you actually think people drink to 'help their hearts' you are incredibly naive.

	14-08-2003 08:12									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ming You aren't safe from polution indoors... dream on

I am as safe as can be ina world of internal combustion.

quote: So you don't drive in cars ever? Because every time you do... you polute the air I breath.

No, Ihave never owned a car, nor do I have a license, never having had to learn.

quote: Cars can be created to be non poluting... so again, this a matter of PC crap only. People want their big cars... but now a majority don't like smokers... PC BABY

You defintion of PC is trully out there. I, unlike you, appreciate difference, and don;t see everything through some twisted prisim in which the internal combustion engine, which has revolutionized mankind, all of a sudden is to be fully equated with burning noxious weeds for the narcotics you might inhale from the smoke, simply becuase both processes happen to create harmfull chemicals. Maybe I am just weird, but I note a slight difference in this two things.

I am all for significant chnages in the law forcing better gas milege, and a big push towards other improvements in the technology of transportation. And thus, I also support curtailing smoking. It is NOt political correctness, it is political expediency. Take the victories you can get when you can get them.