TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote: CO2 is essential to the life of the plants that feed us and give us air to breath. How are Methane, Mercury and Lead essential to the life of anything?
.

chartreuse wrote:

marksiwel wrote:I gotta believe 3rd hand smoke is a hazard, I believe that we do pollute a lot and that it effecting us (Look at the number of cancers and increase in birth defects) is it global warming? Maybe not, but is reducing pollution a bad thing?

Depends on a number of factors, I guess, but here's two for starters:
1: How do you define pollution? The EPA just classified CO2 as a pollutant, yet it's essential to the life of the plants that feed us and give us air to breath.
2: Is the "cure" worse than the "disease"? Yes, Cap and Trade, I'm looking at you...

chartreuse wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Also they raise the rates because they are JERKS! Its all about money, they raise the rates because they raise the rates. If they could they would take your DNA and then raise your rates. They would raise your rates based on race if they could. they would raise your rates because you are a gun owner if they could.

with you on this, if not on smoking bans.

pbwalker wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

chartreuse wrote: Dead center of town, that. They had to put up a fence, 'cos folks were dying to get in.

or trying to get out

As for Fat people raising Insurance rates, go for it.

Only if they raise the rates for the fat people...but unfortunately, that's not the case.

chartreuse wrote: Dead center of town, that. They had to put up a fence, 'cos folks were dying to get in.

Fangs wrote:All throughout this thread I was thinking about tossing in the exhaust fumes thing, and then VoiceofReason has to go rob me of that pleasure...

But seriously guys, if someone can smoke 2 packs a day and die at 90, then I very much doubt that your 3rd hand smoke off the walls are going to have any noticeable impact on your lifespan.

That having been said, the only people who have ever complained about the fumes my soldering lets off are smokers

chartreuse wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

marksiwel wrote:But when you smoke in a resturant and I'm 5 tables away and I'm getting hurt, too bad, so sad, no smoking.

Who forced you to go to that restaurant? How about no telling other people what they can do with their property? Don't like the way they're using it, go elsewhere. Can't find an elsewhere you like, start your own business and run it the way you want.

Heh, if you're mad about the goverment telling people what they can and cant do with their property when it comes to something reasonable like smoking, you are in for a shock if you ever have to deal with zoning laws

Err... perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this evening, but I fail to see the humour in that...

One of the things that I find most repugnant about the ACORN folks and the like is they way that they'll decry injustice in one sphere, then turn around and perpetrate the exact same injustices in another. I'd hoped we all on here were better than that.

KD5NRH wrote:

marksiwel wrote:But when you smoke in a resturant and I'm 5 tables away and I'm getting hurt, too bad, so sad, no smoking.

Who forced you to go to that restaurant? How about no telling other people what they can do with their property? Don't like the way they're using it, go elsewhere. Can't find an elsewhere you like, start your own business and run it the way you want.

chartreuse wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Did anyone force me to eat a Cheese Burger? But if I ate a Cheese Burger and you somehow got fat because of it, I could see you point. But when you smoke in a resturant and I'm 5 tables away and I'm getting hurt, too bad, so sad, no smoking.

Ah, well now we get into the free market argument. Nobody forced you to go to a smoking restaurant either. If enough folks feel like you do, somebody will open a smoke free restaurant, and he'll make a lot of money. Then other folks will copy him, before you know it, you'll have loads of smoke free restaurants, without the government getting involved.

They actually do this in Spain. Each place has to have a sign on the door saying if it's smoking permitted or smoking banned. That way, folks know what to expect before they walk through the door.

seniorshooteress wrote:There are a lot of other things that cause cancer not just smoking. My step dad never smoked a day in his life, yet he now at the age of 87 has lung cancer. The kind from being exposed to asbestos Mesothelioma. Like some one else also said here, fast food/fatty foods caused clogged arteries/heart attack/stroke. Lets just ban everything that isn't healthy and call it taking care of ourselves and others. Also lets get some law enforcement out there to check and make sure that everyone does 90 min. of cordio every day. And that carpet that has all that nasty left over cigarette stuff in it, what about all the chemicals already in it from the factory and that stuff that is used to stop spots. I think it is a bunch of hog wash that cigarette residue clings to all things out doors and is going to give cancer to who ever walks by a building. What else is outside? Pollen, mold, smog, etc. A smoker pays more taxes than the non-smoker so if everyone stopped smoking, where is government going to get that lost revenue from? This is my opinion on the smoking ban. Just couldn't resist putting in my 2cents worth.

chartreuse wrote:

jmra wrote:I have no problem with someone smoking on their private property. I do have a right not to have smoke blown in my face in a public place. And like someone else said it's the long term effects I'm worried about. Btw, the chain smoker wasn't stopped by our employer, he was stopped by the chain smoking. I hope you decide to stop before you suffer the same fate.

Honest question: how do you define a public place? Last I checked, most bars, restaurants etc. were private property. And I don't see how it's the government's business to tell the owner of said private property which lawful activities he may or may not permit, on his private property.

Slightly challenging question (I'm not attacking you, but I've never seen a smoker blow smoke in somebodies face unless he was trying to start a fight): Do you notice any similarity between your phrase "a right not to have smoke blown in my face" and the typical Brady Bunch expression "a right not to feel threatened by somebody brandishing a weapon."?

ifanyonecan wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.

Lets think of it like this, if I had nuclear Waste facility next door and they were doing a poor job of keeping the public shielded from Nuclear Waste, I shouldnt have to sue them, they should be doing everything possible to keep me from being harmed.
Same thing with Smoking.
if Second and Third hand smoke are that dangerous, it only makes sense to limit the exposure to the public (The whole my rights end where your nose begins thing)

I disagree. I think it would be a better system in which the people would bring suits against the facility, get money, and force them, financially, to make the changes. Making it criminal means the government now has a large, wasteful department to monitor and fine nuclear waste facilities, and it restricts the free market by requiring extra personnel at the plant to take care of the inevitable stack of paperwork and records they'll need to keep.

I have a problem with current Americans' habit of taking every problem they have with their everyday life to the government. There are lots of bad things, but they don't all need to be illegal or regulated.

ifanyonecan wrote:I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.