Now the anti-smoking bans are going just too damn far...

[Malik23]

Originally Posted by stogie_kanobie_one

Makes one wonder where are the politicians that stand up 'against' such things?

They're all drunk on tobacco lawsuit money.

[burninator]

Originally Posted by stogie_kanobie_one

Makes one wonder where are the politicians that stand up 'against' such things?

Nobody gets elected by standing up to the majority.

[ghostrider]

What a country! We can go kill unborn children at will, but god help those that light up in public...

If a woman can choose to end a life inside her, why can't we have the right to choose to smoke?

[DruLeeParsec]

Originally Posted by ghostrider

What a country! We can go kill unborn children at will, but god help those that light up in public...

If a woman can choose to end a life inside her, why can't we have the right to choose to smoke?

OK,I'll still have to disagree with you on the "unborn child" description, but I see your point.

All of this stuff is based on logical fallacies and bad science. ALL of the 2nd hand smoke argument is based on a CDC report that has now been completely debunked. But they still use the science from that report even though it's not valid.

Then you have logic like this:

eed to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,” said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.”

OK, let's use that logic on another argument and see if it holds water.

When the 55 mph speed limit was being pushed the argument was that we'd save X number of lives by slowing down. OK, then how many lives would we save if we slowed down the speed limit to 10 miles per hour? How about if we stopped using cars? Then we'd end ALL auto deaths. But the logic doesn't follow because people don't want to give up using cars. OK, so that means that a certain number of auto deaths are acceptable in order to allow us the freedom to drive cars.

And that is the fundamental flaw of this argument. To be a free person in a free country means that people are allowed to exist who have a different point of view than yours AND THAT"S OK. In fact, that's the very thing that proves our freedom. So if some people choose to smoke in their house or on their patio or even if a business wants to allow smoking inside their place of business then a truly free state must allow it.

Where is the balance between being allowed to live a normal life and being wrapped in pillows being protected from everything?

[TU09]

Originally Posted by burninator

It's things like this that illustrate the importance of maintaining the constitutional republic, as opposed to instituting democracy. The former is governance based on predetermined rules established to protect liberty. The latter is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Exactly. The entire reasoning behind establishing a constitutional republic was to protect the minority in any given circumstance from the majority. Democracy is likely the worst form of government to have ever existed and we are steadily moving closer to it.

[Seanohue]

Originally Posted by TU09

Exactly. The entire reasoning behind establishing a constitutional republic was to protect the minority in any given circumstance from the majority. Democracy is likely the worst form of government to have ever existed and we are steadily moving closer to it.

That may be a bit of an overstatement. I, like everyone else here, see every one of these smoking bans as haneous and unconstitutional. But without democracy, what else is there? Unfortunately, there are no hybrid types. I would like Anarchial Democracy; we elect our people, but they don't do anything Wouldn't that be nice?

Does anyone have the debunking facts of 2nd hand smoke? I need to show that to a few people to get them off my ass.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by Seanohue

That may be a bit of an overstatement. I, like everyone else here, see every one of these smoking bans as haneous and unconstitutional. But without democracy, what else is there? Unfortunately, there are no hybrid types. I would like Anarchial Democracy; we elect our people, but they don't do anything Wouldn't that be nice?

Does anyone have the debunking facts of 2nd hand smoke? I need to show that to a few people to get them off my ass.

um...psst...um....(we're not a democracy)

[Seanohue]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

um...psst...um....(we're not a democracy)

Good point

[cigar no baka]

Correct, we are not a democracy. We are a representative democracy, but in fact are an oligarchy.

[Bubba -NJ]

So as I take it , we as citizens cannot pollute the air , only large corporations such as coal burning electric plants(and others) can . The clean air act provisions are being repealed slowly by politicians to keep the support of big money corporations , meaning that the air we breathe outside is now becoming more hazardous everyday . I also would like to see the debunking report to better arm myself for such confrontations about second hand smoke . If I were to get a ticket for smoking in public , I'd frame it .

[DETROITPHA357]

I wonder if any of the councle members are cigars smokers. I think there going to far, not being about to smoke outside. I can think of a few things thats worse. How far will it go.

[Neuromancer]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

This is and I can't believe we just let it happen. This is just like the Jews letting fascism permeate in Germany and we know what happened there.

EXCUSE ME!!! The Jews didn't let anything permeate in Germany...they were faced with a violence the likes of which they'd never seen before...they'd had 1700 years to get used to persecution but what happened in Nazi Germany was a persection on a grand guignol scale...that's a pretty outrageous metaphor you make...you need a history refresher course...

Hmmm...guess I just jacked my own thread, but making a comparison like that just sorta pisses me off...

[Isombitch]

Originally Posted by burninator

Behold the dangerous nature of democracy.

That's why the founder's insisted on a republic - they knew all about the tyranny called democracy.

[burninator]

Originally Posted by Isombitch

That's why the founder's insisted on a republic - they knew all about the tyranny called democracy.

Yup...our politicians have convinced us that as long as the law doesn't infringe on our personal liberties, it's ok to take away those of others if there is some perceived benefit.

[kenstogie]

[SIZE="5"]Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a slippery slope and sadly we are sliding uncontrollably.[/SIZE]