Do smokers have any rights?

eco-logic Powerhouse.com ^ | February 15, 2005 | Alan Caruba

[Old Professer]

Generally, when a single individual takes away another's rights he is punished.

[JohnD9207]

Exactly Professor. While Notigar simply states that people who smoke around kids should get reported and punished, it really isn't that simple. We (society) cannot get people to quit smoking crack around their kids, let alone cigarettes. However one should be careful when talking away peoples rights, and turning a law abiding citizen into a criminal. Folks usually object!

[humblegunner]

Puff.

[Doe Eyes]

from allowing consumption of a legal commodity on his property

Don't worry, illegal is soon to come.

[SheLion]

Puff.

Puff back atcha! :)

[Bogey]

But you have to admit, a BAT scientist is probably the last guy to look to for objectivity.

---

Why does he have any less crediability that cancer scientists that get paid millions to get a certain result?
And they are paid HUGE money.
Cancer isn't called a business for no reason.

[Bogey]

I think that if smokers really cared about anyone but themselves, these would not be issues. Instead everyone is asked to assume risks just so smokers won;t feel withdrawal symptoms.

---

Where are you FORCED to go that you have to be around smokers? If a business CHOOSES to allow smoking, why are you forced to go in?
Unlike your car exhaust, which no law protects people from.

[Bogey]

I agree that smoking around kids is stupid, how does one go about taking away someone's rights?

---

If smoking around children is so dangerous, shouldn't we all be dead?
Until the late 70's, smoking was permitted everywhere, including hospitals.
Not to mention 45% of the population smoked.
SHS didn't cause all these health problems then.
Not until people were brainwashed to believe this crap.
The facts just don't support the "supposed" science.
Where are the bodies?
Does smoke stink if you don't smoke? You betcha.
Doesn't make it deadly.
Our parents were the largest generation of smokers.
They are the longest living.

[notigar]

Yeah, but cancer scientists aren't causing cancer. It exists.

[Raycpa]

My advice is designed to help smokers stop the smoking bans. If you want to continue to see them applied and watch yourself see fewer and fewer smoking places, including homes with children or multifamilies, please by all means ignore it.

[Bogey]

Yeah, but cancer scientists aren't causing cancer. It exists.

---

But their are paid huge dollars to come up with a reason for it.
Whether it's true or not.
If the American Cancer Society pays someone 5 million dollars to prove something causes cancer, I bet hell or highwater they get the results they want.
It's called payola. Not science.
And it's big business.

[Bogey]

My advice is designed to help smokers stop the smoking bans. If you want to continue to see them applied and watch yourself see fewer and fewer smoking places, including homes with children or multifamilies, please by all means ignore it.

---

Everyone has a right to determine what they call dangerous and offensive.
Activists Judges are deeming religious expression equally dangerous and offensive in ruling after ruling.
Since the public is incapable of determining what's best for them, the Judges do it for them.
Life is so simple when other's control what's acceptable, dangerous and offensive. Even if they can't back it up.

[Raycpa]

Everyone has a right to determine what they call dangerous and offensive.

And when the majority decide to use the government to enforce their wishes for smoke free environments, you lose.

It really does matter what they think of smokers.

[Just another Joe]

My advice is designed to help smokers stop the smoking bans.

Putting out your brand of pablum again, Ray?

Your advice is designed to help smokers accept the smoking bans, not stop the smoking bans.
You've readily admitted on other threads that you would ban smoking altogether. So don't try to peddle your horse apples to someone that hasn't had experience with you.

[Just another Joe]

And when the majority decide to use the government to enforce their wishes for smoke free environments, you lose.

When that happens, and the anti-smokers win using the government, everyone loses.

I'll tell you the truth, Ray, when they come after something you enjoy, I'm going to laugh my arse off and tell you to suck it up.

[CSM]

Ray, Still waiting for you to enter the Kelo threads in support of government confiscation of private property from one private citizen to be given to other private citizens for alternative uses. Is the smoking ban issue any different? I say not. Do you have the intestinal fortitude to challenge the conservative POV regarding private property on those threads?

[Raycpa]

Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
	Posted by Raycpa to CSM On News/Activism 06/24/2005 3:08:22 PM EDT · 700 of 728 You celebrate and applaud smoking bans. You have me confused with someone else if the ban is from government. You describe the larger chain restaurants support of such bans, ultimately eliminating their smaller competitors, as capitalism. That is a fact. In this case, a private developer is using government force to confiscate private property. More like government is using the private developer. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
	Posted by CSM to Raycpa On News/Activism 06/24/2005 2:39:16 PM EDT · 698 of 728 You celebrate and applaud smoking bans. You describe the larger chain restaurants support of such bans, ultimately eliminating their smaller competitors, as capitalism. In this case, a private developer is using government force to confiscate private property. No difference. It has now been sanctioned by the USSC. When is your party? Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
	Posted by Raycpa to CSM On News/Activism 06/24/2005 2:19:17 PM EDT · 696 of 728 Why do you think I celebrate the reality that states have domain over property? The fact that I attempt to educate you and others about state rights doesn't mean I celebrate the situation. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
	Posted by CSM to Raycpa; Gabz; SheLion On News/Activism 06/24/2005 12:56:59 PM EDT · 689 of 728 Hey Ray, Isn't this your definition of capitalism? Why haven't you come on over for a little celebration of this decision?

[MEGoody]

I think that if smokers really cared about anyone but themselves, these would not be issues.

I think that if anti-smoking Nazis cared about anyone but themselves, there would not be issues.

[Bogey]

And when the majority decide to use the government to enforce their wishes for smoke free environments, you lose.

It really does matter what they think of smokers.

---

And religious extremists. Which is why the courts are taking charge. Everyday another religious expression is squashed and outlawed all over the country.
And the majority is staying quiet.
Majority rule is a slippery slope.
It's too bad we don't operate as we were supposed to. A Republic.
A true democracy, as you support, eventually bites everyone in the rear.
Including you.

[Raycpa]

If you make your stand based on a fiction of reality, you lose before you start.