Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[Magic Man]

You might want to tell the Department of Labour; the news will probably come as a shock to them.

This is America, buddy. We don't have a Department of Labour. We have a Department of Labor.

 

[McBell]

Really? Who made that argument? I certainly haven't seen it on this thread, although I have seen some bad mischaracterizations of others' arguments on this thread (which is what I'm assuming this is).

See post #376.

One wonders who is forcing all these non-smokers into smoking establishments...

 

[ChristineES]

Hmmm. Last night, the power went off in the entire part of the state I live (Southern California) some people couldn't cook on their stoves so a few lit up the BBQs. I smelled the smell of charcoal until about 9pm. Are you suggesting that we ban that, too, because some of the neighbors don't like the smell?

 

[Magic Man]

See post #376.

Thanks. I wrote it, so it's a good bet I know what it says.

One wonders who is forcing all these non-smokers into smoking establishments...

One wonders why you feel the need to refuse to listen to anyone and instead repeat your ridiculous, false claims.

 

[Magic Man]

Hmmm. Last night, the power went off in the entire part of the state I live (Southern California) some people couldn't cook on their stoves so a few lit up the BBQs. I smelled the smell of charcoal until about 9pm. Are you suggesting that we ban that, too, because some of the neighbors don't like the smell?

Have you seen anyone advocate banning smoking?

I understand you and Mestemia and Kathryn are not interested in actually listening to what Penguin and I are saying because you've already labelled us as "irrationally against smoking" due to misinterpretations of our comments, but I wonder why you all feel the need to prove your refusal to listen with comments like these (including Mestemia's above comment). Wouldn't it be more productive to either listen to what we're saying or, at least if you're not going to, stop making these silly comments?

 

[McBell]

Have you seen anyone advocate banning smoking?

I understand you and Mestemia and Kathryn are not interested in actually listening to what Penguin and I are saying because you've already labelled us as "irrationally against smoking" due to misinterpretations of our comments, but I wonder why you all feel the need to prove your refusal to listen with comments like these (including Mestemia's above comment). Wouldn't it be more productive to either listen to what we're saying or, at least if you're not going to, stop making these silly comments?

You flat out said to ban smoking in all restaurants and bars because non-smokers have to enter them; they have no choice.

Then you said that that is not what you said.

Then you repeated what you said as what you said you said.

And when I presented it as I did above, you said that that is not what you said and then said what you said was what you already said.

So you keep saying the same thing over and over all the while saying what you said is not what you said.

 

[Magic Man]

You flat out said to ban smoking in all restaurants and bars because non-smokers have to enter them; they have no choice.

Incorrect. This is why I suggest listening instead of just repeating this nonsense. You're a smart guy; it's not like you can't understand as long as you are willing to listen.

I said the ban of smoking in restaurants and bars is necessary because otherwise there would be no bars or restaurants that would ban smoking of their own accord. I also said that without the ban, if a non-smoker wanted to go to a bar or restaurant, they had to go to one where smoking was allowed. No, a non-smoker was never forced to go to a bar or restaurant, but if they wanted to go, say, because they didn't want to be a hermit and they wanted to have friends, then they were indeed forced to go to one that allowed smoking. In that case they had no choice. Now everyone has a choice. Smokers can still go to restaurants; they just have to go outside to smoke.

I'd rather not have to explain it again. I believe this explanation is sufficiently clear, but if you do need something clarified, please ask. I'd rather that than you continuing to produce mischaracterizations.

Then you said that that is not what you said.

Then you repeated what you said as what you said you said.

And when I presented it as I did above, you said that that is not what you said and then said what you said was what you already said.

So you keep saying the same thing over and over all the while saying what you said is not what you said.

Or you could simply listen. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[McBell]

Incorrect. This is why I suggest listening instead of just repeating this nonsense. You're a smart guy; it's not like you can't understand as long as you are willing to listen.

I said the ban of smoking in restaurants and bars is necessary because otherwise there would be no bars or restaurants that would ban smoking of their own accord. I also said that without the ban, if a non-smoker wanted to go to a bar or restaurant, they had to go to one where smoking was allowed. No, a non-smoker was never forced to go to a bar or restaurant, but if they wanted to go, say, because they didn't want to be a hermit and they wanted to have friends, then they were indeed forced to go to one that allowed smoking. In that case they had no choice. Now everyone has a choice. Smokers can still go to restaurants; they just have to go outside to smoke.

I'd rather not have to explain it again. I believe this explanation is sufficiently clear, but if you do need something clarified, please ask. I'd rather that than you continuing to produce mischaracterizations.



Or you could simply listen. Is that really too much to ask?

here we go again...

 

[Revoltingest]

It's called an "Mballism".

Hmmm.....this is unfair piling on.
I hereby retract that jest.

 

[Kathryn]

So the United States doesn't require employers to mitigate workplace hazards?


You might want to tell the Department of Labour; the news will probably come as a shock to them.

Twist number one.

But under the right circumstances, you would tell people that they can't smoke in their own homes?

Twist number two.

Apartment renters do not own their own homes. The property owner owns the home. I say that property owners should be able to make that call.

Yes - I agree that's more of an inconvenience than a hazard. I'd rank it similar to a neighbour who plays loud music in the middle of the night. You're not going to die from it, but it's inconsiderate.

You are honestly saying that someone smoking OUTSIDE on their own property (their backyard) is right up there with someone playing loud music late at night???

Wow. Tell you what - I'll take the late night smokers next door over loud thumping music that keeps me awake at 2 am anytime. I seriously doubt that the smokers will keep me awake. Or give me lung cancer from across two yards.

Yeah... I'm not sure how I feel about that. rakhel (I think it was rakhel) pointed out that a trucker's truck is both his workplace and his residence. I think that muddies the waters.

So you think it's reasonable to make it illegal for a truck driver, who OWNS his own truck, and who drives it ALONE, to smoke inside his own vehicle?

All of your arguments have been supported by some sort of libertarian ideal that regulation of workplace hazards is bad.

Twist number three. Honestly, not even worthy of an answer, it's so ridiculous. Of course I believe that some regulations of workplace hazards are necessary. I also believe that if workers don't mind working in a smoking environment, they should be allowed to make that choice.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

You all make good points. I agree that we have a nanny state, and I agree that smokers do not have the right to force their habit on other people.

 

[Revoltingest]

For Kathryn.....& Mball......
[youtube]DZAtzcthSxM[/youtube]
The Twist - Chubby Checker - YouTube

 

[Kathryn]

Thanks, Revoltingest, but I much prefer this version:

[youtube]GWr_eSfTtIw[/youtube]
Pulp Fiction (Dance Scene) - YouTube

 

[Revoltingest]

The clip I chose had a the perfect title.....& a gal who struck me as yer spit'n image (from a few decades ago, perhaps).
But certainly, Pulp Fiction clips are always appropriate.

"The Twist" should regularly make an appearance during a certain kind of conversation.....er, non-conversation.

 

[ChristineES]

Have you seen anyone advocate banning smoking?

I understand you and Mestemia and Kathryn are not interested in actually listening to what Penguin and I are saying because you've already labelled us as "irrationally against smoking" due to misinterpretations of our comments, but I wonder why you all feel the need to prove your refusal to listen with comments like these (including Mestemia's above comment). Wouldn't it be more productive to either listen to what we're saying or, at least if you're not going to, stop making these silly comments?

I made that silly comment for a purpose. We all know that we shouldn't smoke around children by now (or at least we hope). Here in CA, they have already banned smoking in all public places. Someone was complaining that smoke from outside was coming into his house. The person was smoking outside, like all the laws state, that person smoking was NOT breaking the law. And we can't make laws about what everyone does in their own house- whether they are fined, warned or whatever- we have a lack of police now for terrible crimes against children- abuse, molestation, etc. What we need is for education, not more laws.

The fact remains is that I don't want the government breathing down my neck for everything I do. No one else does, either, I presume. It starts with people smoking in their house, but after that what's next? They won't stop with that- it may eventually (although it is very remote) that the government will dictate what we can eat and drink. I mean, I am an adult. I can make my own choices. I know how to raise my own children.

Because I have 2 special needs children, I have had social workers in my house- and it is not a nice thing. We have to make sure the house is perfectly clean on all occasions. If, for one day, we didn't vacuum the carpet, and a social worker would show up- we would hear some kind of lecture. The house wasn't dirty, the carpet was only a little bit dirty. I am glad now that Elijah is 18 and we don't have that anymore. I speak from experience.

 

[Rakhel]

I made that silly comment for a purpose. We all know that we shouldn't smoke around children by now (or at least we hope). Here in CA, they have already banned smoking in all public places. Someone was complaining that smoke from outside was coming into his house. The person was smoking outside, like all the laws state, that person smoking was NOT breaking the law. And we can't make laws about what everyone does in their own house- whether they are fined, warned or whatever- we have a lack of police now for terrible crimes against children- abuse, molestation, etc. What we need is for education, not more laws.

The fact remains is that I don't want the government breathing down my neck for everything I do. No one else does, either, I presume. It starts with people smoking in their house, but after that what's next? They won't stop with that- it may eventually (although it is very remote) that the government will dictate what we can eat and drink. I mean, I am an adult. I can make my own choices. I know how to raise my own children.

Because I have 2 special needs children, I have had social workers in my house- and it is not a nice thing. We have to make sure the house is perfectly clean on all occasions. If, for one day, we didn't vacuum the carpet, and a social worker would show up- we would hear some kind of lecture. The house wasn't dirty, the carpet was only a little bit dirty. I am glad now that Elijah is 18 and we don't have that anymore. I speak from experience.

yeah might as well start calling America a Communist country, if the nanny laws come into place. Free country, indeed.


Hell, we aren't too far from it now.

 

[Kathryn]

The clip I chose had a the perfect title.....& a gal who struck me as yer spit'n image (from a few decades ago, perhaps).
But certainly, Pulp Fiction clips are always appropriate.

"The Twist" should regularly make an appearance during a certain kind of conversation.....er, non-conversation.

Of course, you're right on all counts!

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, you're right on all counts!

I love it when you talk dirty!

 

[Magic Man]

here we go again...

Hmmm...I guess paying attention is too much to ask. Oh well. Go ahead and insert your head back into the sand, then.

 

[Magic Man]

I made that silly comment for a purpose. We all know that we shouldn't smoke around children by now (or at least we hope). Here in CA, they have already banned smoking in all public places. Someone was complaining that smoke from outside was coming into his house. The person was smoking outside, like all the laws state, that person smoking was NOT breaking the law. And we can't make laws about what everyone does in their own house- whether they are fined, warned or whatever- we have a lack of police now for terrible crimes against children- abuse, molestation, etc. What we need is for education, not more laws.

Why can't we have more laws and more education? You're mixing things together here. The OP brought up a question. He also said that his solution was to close his window. No one advocated making what that particular smoker did illegal. It's just a tough situation that people were looking for a good solution to.

The fact remains is that I don't want the government breathing down my neck for everything I do. No one else does, either, I presume.

Yup, no one does.

It starts with people smoking in their house, but after that what's next? They won't stop with that- it may eventually (although it is very remote) that the government will dictate what we can eat and drink. I mean, I am an adult. I can make my own choices. I know how to raise my own children.

Sorry, but the slippery slope argument doesn't work here any more than it does regarding same-sex marriage. You could say "Well, first we can't beat our kids, and next thing you know, we won't be able to have kids at all". The point is there are some things people shouldn't be allowed to do. We take them on a case-by-case basis. Making one thing illegal now because it makes sense doesn't mean that we're going to end up with 1984.

Because I have 2 special needs children, I have had social workers in my house- and it is not a nice thing. We have to make sure the house is perfectly clean on all occasions. If, for one day, we didn't vacuum the carpet, and a social worker would show up- we would hear some kind of lecture. The house wasn't dirty, the carpet was only a little bit dirty. I am glad now that Elijah is 18 and we don't have that anymore. I speak from experience.

I'm sorry for your experience. However, I don't think that's typical. My cousin is special needs, and they rarely deal with social workers. And maybe it's just your particular social worker. Unless your house is in really bad shape, you don't have anything to worry about legally.

But I also don't see what this has to do with anything. There are two options:

1) We can just let parents do whatever they want with their kids without any rules.
2) We can set rules for what parents can do with their kids.

I assume we both support option 2. Then the question is just a matter of what is acceptable and what isn't, what we can tell parents and what we can't. There is already a line drawn. We can't beat our children. We can't subject them to horrible living conditions (at least not when we have other easy options). We can't lock them in the basement or a cage. The reasons for those are that they unnecessarily harm the kids. It's the same reason I can't beat you up and you can't shoot me.

Obviously, we need to keep out of parenting as much as possible, but there is a certain amount of checking up we have to do. All we're saying is that smoking in an enclosed place with children should be added to that list of things you can't do as a parent. Education would also be a good component.

And just to be clear, since I'm not sure it is: I am not advocating making smoking in your own house illegal, unless there are children in there. If that condition is not there, then have at it all you want.