Smoking

[Chris]

Quote by: Pooeypants Are you implying that it's made of penis? Dog's penis? The hotdog sell spunks all over of them? In the Mayonaise?

Oh leave her alone :) I dont know about over there but over here hotdogs can come with whatever kind of meat you want. Turkey dogs, 100%beef, 100%pork etc. No scary parts included.

[Osborn F Enready]

Imudman made a great, well worded point very succinctly.

On the surface, using governmental power to promote public safety appears reasonable, since it generally improves the quality of life in society. But every time one of these laws is passed, the inherent dignity of the individual is marginalized in favor of promoting the general welfare.

The whole point some of these people is missing is that the government is supposed to try to better general welfare, hence the passage of laws within reason. The purpose of these laws is to improve society, according to, the opinion of that SOCIETY as long as it does not INFRINGE OR IMPEDE THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER.

This entire society is BASED ON PROPERTY RIGHTS!

To remove essential rights of property owners, that is recognized as inalienable rights, is Un-Constitutional, regardless of health effects of VOLUNTARY PATRONS OR WORKERS.

Smoking is legal, as it is legal to produce, sell and consume cigarettes if you are over age 18. It is the right of the property OWNER, or if designated by contract, the lessee to decide if it is a smoking or non-smoking facility.

That is why the Constitution is written as it is. Promote the general welfare, but a seperate inalienable BILL OF RIGHTS!

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Imudman made a great, well worded point very succinctly. On the surface, using governmental power to promote public safety appears reasonable, since it generally improves the quality of life in society. But every time one of these laws is passed, the inherent dignity of the individual is marginalized in favor of promoting the general welfare. The whole point some of these people is missing is that the government is supposed to try to better general welfare, hence the passage of laws within reason. The purpose of these laws is to improve society, according to, the opinion of that SOCIETY as long as it does not INFRINGE OR IMPEDE THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER. This entire society is BASED ON PROPERTY RIGHTS! To remove essential rights of property owners, that is recognized as inalienable rights, is Un-Constitutional, regardless of health effects of VOLUNTARY PATRONS OR WORKERS. Smoking is legal, as it is legal to produce, sell and consume cigarettes if you are over age 18. It is the right of the property OWNER, or if designated by contract, the lessee to decide if it is a smoking or non-smoking facility. That is why the Constitution is written as it is. Promote the general welfare, but a seperate inalienable BILL OF RIGHTS!

Great catch Osborn, I was going to say the exact same thing.


Also, thanks to Imudman for focusing the conversation so that that point could be emphasized for those reading at home. This really is the crux of the issue.

[Osborn F Enready]

Imudman said:
I think you'd be a better person if you wouldn't use your right to vote against private property rights. I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm only saying you shouldn't vote against other people's rights. A person allowing patrons to smoke in his establishment in no way harms you, no matter what you might think.

That's the trouble with America today. Too many people, rather than negotiating with their neighbors, would rather jump on the first bandwagon coming along that uses the government gun to get their way. It's just bullying on a grand scale. Sooner or later someone's going to vote away some of your rights...


I say:
Great statement, and well worded. Kudos.

Gr8fuldaniel said:
I dont want any rights that are harmful to others.

I say:
Great, Bush and his cronies love you. Speak for your own rights, and not others and all will be well. My rights are inalienable, as are MY properties, since they are mine.

“Whenever we are attacked, people are willing to give up someone else's liberties for their own security.”
-Andrew P. Napolitano, on FNC, 2004-Dec-18

“We must sacrifice our civil liberties.”
-Brent Scowcroft, in the immediate aftermath of the 2001-Sep-11 terrorist campaign



Cephus said:
Most business owners do not own their place of business, most rent them on a month-to-month basis, so talking about property rights is a little ridiculous.

I say:
Do you have no rights in a lease, or rental of property? You can't be that ignorant of American law, right? Property owners have rights, some of which are passed to the lessee or renter, some of which are EXCLUSIVE to the renters or lessees. All of this is determined over a contractual rental agreement, entered by two parties, dealing with property, of a vuluntary nature in order to be legal.

Cephus said:
Secondly, there is no immunity to following the law just because you're a business.

I say:
The question is NOT immunity of the law. THE QUESTION IS DOES THE LAW HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF EXISTING, since it INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF A PROPERTY OWNER! Un-Constitutional laws have existed in the past, and they will in the future, it is up to the people to revoke them, if judicial review does not.

Learn about law. Because a law is passed, does not make it permanent, or RIGHT!

Chris said:
Dude, that thread died a long time ago. Unless of course you want to give it new life.

I say:
You say that with an aire of superiority, as if you feel you "won" the debate? Bring it on chappy! I always enjoy debate of FACT and LOGIC, something you often leave on the doorstep to the debate room.

Chris said:
Dude I know thats a good point to prove but are you sure it isn't photoshopped? Can you do a snopes check for me (I'm Lazy)

I say:
Hence the reason I don't often debate with you. You love to spew your "opinion", but are either to ignorant or to lazy to verify your own follies in pointlessness to see that your arguments are based in fiction. You first have to recognize and accept fact to debate it. :rolleyes:

[Cephus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The question is NOT immunity of the law. THE QUESTION IS DOES THE LAW HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF EXISTING, since it INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF A PROPERTY OWNER! Un-Constitutional laws have existed in the past, and they will in the future, it is up to the people to revoke them, if judicial review does not.

Then you be sure to let us know when the people revoke it, because most of these laws were VOTED INTO LAW BY THE PEOPLE!

Learn about law. Because a law is passed, does not make it permanent, or RIGHT!

Nor transitory nor WRONG! But it does make it law and laws must be followed while they are in force, like it or not.

[Chris]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You say that with an aire of superiority, as if you feel you "won" the debate? Bring it on chappy! I always enjoy debate of FACT and LOGIC, something you often leave on the doorstep to the debate room.

Your own opinion. I didn't say that with an aire of anything. I was sick of debating the issue, and you cansift through the 347 posts or whatever it was. Cause whatever I can say has already been said. It is not worth arguing anymore.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Hence the reason I don't often debate with you. You love to spew your "opinion", but are either to ignorant or to lazy to verify your own follies in pointlessness to see that your arguments are based in fiction. You first have to recognize and accept fact to debate it.

Cause I cant be bothered. I am only on now cause I am home alone. I have a daughter to concern myself with normally. As opposed to someone who has way more time than me to do nothing but hate on me.

[Osborn F Enready]

Cephus said:
Then you be sure to let us know when the people revoke it, because most of these laws were VOTED INTO LAW BY THE PEOPLE!

I say:
Give me an example of that, and I will give you an example of what I am saying, ok?

My example....
Here in Toledo, Ohio the local government pushed, and passed through city council unanimously a smoking ban outlawing smoking in certain "types" of estabilshments.

I want to point out city coucil voted UNANIMOUSLY to ACCEPT THE BAN, though they never censused the public at all.

Here is the article from our local and largest propaganda rag, err, I mean newspaper.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...010476/-1/NEWS

Bar/Restraunt owners file petitions with near double required citizens signatures to get put on ballot for citizens to vote and many non-smokers are found to disagree with the ban.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...WS16/408030347

Toledo VOTERS, OVERRIDE CITY COUNCIL OVERWHELMINGLY TO SERIOUSLY AMEND SMOKING BAN AND ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...WS09/411030419

All of this was only able to be put on the ballot due to the "legislators" screwing up the legaleze wording of the law. If it weren't for their mistake, the peoples voices would never have even been heard.

Is this not blatant evidence of corruption in government in the sense they use their power to further the betterment of society by projecting that all people have the same intrests, morals and choices that they have or "don't" have?

They are supposed to be representatives, not appointed gods of decision making.

They are supposed to represent their constituents, which requires census.

Absolute corruption is what we have instead. It bears no resemblance to justice, or liberty.

[Osborn F Enready]

Cephus said:
Nor transitory nor WRONG! But it does make it law and laws must be followed while they are in force, like it or not.

I say:
Incorrect. Laws that are unconstitutional on their face, do not have to be followed as per the Constitution. Were slavery laws truly Constitutional? Even though slavery was legal at the adoption of the Constitution, people who could read the common law Constitution could recognize that "all men being equal under the eyes of the law" also included men of color. They could see the wrong of denying people rights based on skin color. You should see what is wrong with denying people their rights of property, based on your personal prefrences.

Workers are voluntary. They can work in a smoking or non-smoking establishment.
Patrons are voluntary. They can patronize smoking or non-smoking establishments.

Property is ownership of an object or land. With that ownership comes rights, and responsibilities.

Business owners can retain the right to refuse service to anyone, but it took an amendment to recognize skin color, so now you cannot refuse service to people based on color.

You can refuse service based on sex, social-class, clothing, status, prefrence, ethics, or any other thing that is not specifically specified to be illegal.

Do I like it? No, but I respect it.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Chris]

This has already been hashed out a billion times before.

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1068

Nothing new is being argued. And since this is a thread about smoking and not smoking bans maybe you should go there and argue instead.

[Osborn F Enready]

This is the boiler room, I am posting on topic, so I will exercise my right to speak in this debate forum dick. Once again, you disagree, can't make a case, and want to remove my rights because I am embarassing you.

No thanks.

Anytime you are ready. That other post stopped getting posted in because it was soo mis-steered off topic by people trying to calm the storm which was leading to arguing because some people couldn't recognize law.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mtichell Johnson? This one?

13, and Andrew Golden, 11, students at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark., shocked the nation by opening fire on their classmates on March 24. The rampage, possibly meant as revenge against Johnson's ex-girlfriends, left four students and one teacher dead and 10 others wounded. Johnson later pleaded guilty, while Golden pleaded not guilty due to mental incompetence. He was nonetheless convicted by a juvenile court judge.

This is clearly a case of kids not being brought up properly, and irresponsible parents.

There are ALREADY LAWS to deal with both issues. Guns were a tool, used by irresponsible people.

Would you be more at ease if they would have used a knife, a piece of broken glass? Maybe a home-made bomb? How about gas, could have used poison gas made from bleach ammonia?

Another person fighting for pointless laws against inanimate objects.

[Imudman]

Quote by: Cephus It has nothing to do with being uncomfortable and everything to do with it being a public health hazard. Most business owners do not own their place of business, most rent them on a month-to-month basis, so talking about property rights is a little ridiculous. Secondly, there is no immunity to following the law just because you're a business. You can't do illegal things in your own home, even if your name is on the title, you can't do illegal things in your business either. If smoking is made illegal in all businesses, then business owners have to deal with it.

Now I've heard everything. Leaseholders don't have property rights? Now that's ridiculous! I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Are you sure you're an American? BTW, Osborn F Enready already said everything I could say in reply to your post, only he said it better than I ever could...

[Chris]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready This is the boiler room, I am posting on topic, so I will exercise my right to speak in this debate forum dick. Once again, you disagree, can't make a case, and want to remove my rights because I am embarassing you. No thanks. Anytime you are ready. That other post stopped getting posted in because it was soo mis-steered off topic by people trying to calm the storm which was leading to arguing because some people couldn't recognize law.

listen trouser stain I have no interest in debating this issue with you at all. I have said all I was going to say on the issue, and don't feel like bringing it up again. It doesn't mean you win, unless you think you have in your pathetic world.

Oh and I think the big brother cunts are knocking on your door. Since they are interested in taking away rights, I think they are going to start with you. They probably already have cameras in your house. I heard they hired aliens to help them man all the videocameras, of every one in the world.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Imudman Now I've heard everything. Leaseholders don't have property rights? Now that's ridiculous!

Obviously, you've never owned a business. A leaseholder doesn't have property rights, at least not in the same sense as a property owner. If you want to put up a sign for your business and the property owner says no, you don't do it. If you want to modify the building, the property owner can, and probably will say no. There are usually long lists of restrictions and exclusions of things you can do written into the lease agreement.

Beyond that, you're still obligated to follow all the local and state laws. If you put up a sign, even if the property owner says it's fine with them, and the city comes down and tells you to take it down, you take it down.

[Imudman]

Quote by: Cephus Obviously, you've never owned a business. A leaseholder doesn't have property rights, at least not in the same sense as a property owner. If you want to put up a sign for your business and the property owner says no, you don't do it. If you want to modify the building, the property owner can, and probably will say no. There are usually long lists of restrictions and exclusions of things you can do written into the lease agreement. Beyond that, you're still obligated to follow all the local and state laws. If you put up a sign, even if the property owner says it's fine with them, and the city comes down and tells you to take it down, you take it down.

Please. I own a business.

Of course I'm obligated to follow the law, just like you. Um, what does that have to do with your statement that leaseholders don't have property rights? Here's a little education for you: Since land isn't portable, what's really traded among people are certain rights running with the land. When you buy or rent a piece of property, all you're really getting is a collection of rights associated with the land. A buyer necessarily has more rights than a renter, since a renter can never rent more rights than those that are available from the owner.

Smoking bans arbitrarily strip land owners and leaseholders alike of their right to control the environment within their establishments. You can't whitewash it away. According to your way of thinking, if enough people got together to vote for complete public ownership of all property then that would be ok. Welcome to Amerika, comrade...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Speaking of rights and smoking:
Do we have a right to be slaves if we want to be?
I know that when the slaves were freed via the Civil War, some of them wanted to keep their jobs but were not allowed. They were emancipated, whether they liked it or not. You are breaking the law if you are a slave to tobacco:

The Emancipation Proclamation "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

EDIT to add:

<snip> And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

[gr8fuldaniel]

We have been declared free by Honest Abe himself and we only need to accept it.

Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D. Director National Institute on Drug Abuse The use of tobacco products may be the Nation's most critical public health problem. It is, in fact, addiction to nicotine that is at the root of this enormous health, social, and financial burden. <snip> Researchers are beginning to find that there may be chemicals other than nicotine in cigarette smoke that contribute to tobacco's addictiveness. This finding and many other new research accomplishments in the addiction arena are providing us with an unprecedented opportunity to curtail this enormous public health crisis.

SLAVERY? Too harsh? Check this 8 page report (pdf) From page 2 of The National Institute on Drug Abuse
Research Report: Is Nicotine Addictive?

National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Report <snip> - - - - - - - - - - Of primary importance to its addictive nature are findings that nicotine activates the brain circuitry that regulates feelings of pleasure, the so-called reward pathways. A key brain chemical involved in mediating the desire to consume drugs is the neurotransmitter dopamine, and research has shown that nicotine increases the levels of dopamine in the reward circuits. Nicotine’s pharmacokinetic properties have been found also to enhance its abuse potential. Cigarette smoking produces a rapid distribution of nicotine to the brain, with drug levels peaking within 10 seconds of inhalation. The acute effects of nicotine dissipate in a few minutes, causing the smoker to continue dosing frequently throughout the day to maintain the drug’s pleasurable effects and prevent withdrawal. What people frequently do not realize is that the cigarette is a very efficient and highly engineered drug-delivery system. By inhaling, the smoker can get nicotine to the brain very rapidly with every puff. A typical smoker will take 10 puffs on a cigarette over a period of 5 minutes that the cigarette is lit. Thus, a person who smokes about 1-1/2 packs (30 cigarettes) daily, gets 300 “hits” of nicotine to the brain each day. These factors contribute considerably to nicotine’s highly addictive nature.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Emancipation Proclamation, and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

Was this drawn before "Posse Committatus"?
I am asking because it seems like the US Military can be deployed against the Marlboro Man (I know Marlboro Man #2, personally, his name is Ed, he's a cool guy so I dont really want him attacked by Uncle Sam) and his boss the souless corporate pigs at Philip Morris, the licensed murderers who rake in $$Billions$$ from legions of hopeless addicts whose cravings are never satisfied. Slaves. Shame on The Pushers.
Am I out of line here? Set me straight.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8ful, yes, you are way out of line, out of the realms of reality, out of the realm of reason and most importantly out of touch with the fact that a RIGHT IS A RIGHT.

You can't seem to differentiate between a person, solely, making a VOLUNTARY CHOICE to purchase their 1st, 51st, 3001st, 100,000,001st cigarrette pack is still a voluntary choice. They knew that from the first time they heard of a cigarette, read the pack, or by the first time a anti-smoker encounters them outside an office building where they are FORCED to go. If they still made that choice, they are choosing to risk the side effects for the good that they get from the substance. Much like a person can only decide for themselves if they want to risk, immediate death, or sever side effects to get their penis to work on command with Viagra.

The pack warns of the side effects.

The GOVERNMENT FORCED THE COMPANIES to disclose their past and present advertising practices.

The doctors, health advisors, mothers, fathers, teachers, and educational programs all preach that smoking is bad for your health, which it is.

NEVER THE LESS, people are still free to make a choice, BE IT BAD OR GOOD FOR THEMSELVES!

You can't understand that some people don't value life as you, don't value their bodies as you, don't value health as you do, don't value ANYTHING as you do.

EACH PERSON HAS THEIR OWN RIGHT, just as you have a right to NOT hang around smokers, or their establishments.

How would you like it if all food was outlawed, and instead you were given a food pill with perfect health requirements for a person your age? It would be ok, and some may like it, but would that make it OK to OUTLAW FOOD? You know, some man made foods is FAR MORE DAMAGING to the body than regular natural food. Some of this damaging food such as junk food, is purposely directed at kids. We are a nation of a growing obesity problem. Does this mean it is ok to OUTLAW all junkfood?

You cannot see how your logic is flawed here Daniel? You can't pick and choose how rights are applied. Rights are rights, period.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You can't seem to differentiate between a person, solely, making a VOLUNTARY CHOICE to purchase their 1st, 51st, 3001st, 100,000,001st cigarrette pack is still a voluntary choice.

Voluntary? Can a smoker not smoke, just stop cold? Speaking from personal experience, they owned me. I am aware not everybody is the same, but I couldnt just decide to not smoke, for a day or a week or even a few hours. I had lost the power of choice. I didnt have the "Right to Smoke", just like a plantation negro doesnt "Have a Right" to pick cotton without pay and be beaten with a whip, and to have his children sold to other plantations. I doubt any of them were proud of this "choice" to come to America, and be owned by a cruel tyrant.
Tobacco is a tyrant.