2nd Hand Smoke, the Myth

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet I'm not paranoid, you're just out to get me!!! Heh. Seriously, first off, I didn't ask you a question, did I? That question was addressed to Osborn, and was specific to him.

Tough. Is this what you're crying about? The question wasn't directed to me? Oh my.

Quote by: madprophet Secondly, you didn't answer my question, you asked me a question.

The majority of the post was describing why the government shouldn't ban smoking from public places. Go ahead, read it.

Quote by: madprophet Go reread you're post, do you even once justify private property rights? Do you at all argue that people do not have a right to clean air? No, you piss and moan about the government "dictating what a private business does" (by-the-way, the government does regulate strip clubs, so that's a bad example,) and demand for me to prove constitutionally a position that I have not taken.

Yes, I've made an example out of you. Now everyone knows my stance. Sorry if your feelings got hurt?

Also, things like "mercury in the water" is very subtle and people often unawaringly overlook possibility. It's like a restaurant lying to you. Thus, that's a crappy crappy example.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer The majority of the post was describing why the government shouldn't ban smoking from public places. Go ahead, read it.

And my original question was....

Osborn, why should people have private property rights and not the right to clean air? Do you have an argument for this arrangment other than "that's the way it is"?

...not about the government banning public smoking.

Thank you.

I also forgot to point this out in my last post, as I got sidetracked by my paranoia:

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Yes.. yes you have [stated an opinion], dear.

vs.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No one is saying you did [state an opinion]!

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Why does everyone talk about second-hand smoke? What about first-hand smoke? If second-hand smoke is so bad, then, as a smoker, shouldnt I be dead by now?

Morgan, I could care less if you kill yourself slowly. I just prefer not to share your posion. I'll find my own, thank you very much.

And hey Os, if you want to flack for Big Tobacco and call others who don't Nazis, that is your business. And my lungs are my property. You want to trash yours that is also your business, but leave my property alone.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Also, things like "mercury in the water" is very subtle and people often unawaringly overlook possibility. It's like a restaurant lying to you. Thus, that's a crappy crappy example.

So it is alright for the government to "dictate what a private business does"?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet And my original question was.... ...not about the government banning public smoking. Thank you.

Firstly, why the hell are you adding things to what I've said?

Secondly, I don't care what your original question. What is your problem?

Quote by: madprophet So it is alright for the government to "dictate what a private business does"?

I've already told you.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Firstly, why the hell are you adding things to what I've said?

It's for clarity. It's a common practice. I was illustrating your contradictions: first you said I had stated an opinion, and then you said nobody had said I had.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Secondly, I don't care what your original question.

Heh. You're funny.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer What is your problem?

I ain't gots no problems. I thinks yooze the one with da problems.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I've already told you [what I think about government dictating what private businesses do].

You've made two contradictory statements. First, you make the unqualified, blanket statement that it is "unconstitutional" that the government is "dictating what a private business does." You even capitalized "private" and "dictating." And then you admit that there are cases where the government can, in fact, dictate what private businesses do. (Is "subtle" in the Constitution?)

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet It's for clarity. It's a common practice. I was illustrating your contradictions: first you said I had stated an opinion, and then you said nobody had said I had.

That might be true.. but like I said, you freaking ADDED those words, kiddo.

Quote by: madpropher I ain't gots no problems. I thinks yooze the one with da problems.

What the hell?

Quote by: madprophet You've made two contradictory statements. First, you make the unqualified, blanket statement that it is "unconstitutional" that the government is "dictating what a private business does." You even capitalized "private" and "dictating." And then you admit that there are cases where the government can, in fact, dictate what private businesses do. (Is "subtle" in the Constitution?)

I already told you, dear. Let me remind you. But, this will be the last time. So don't miss it again!

Also, things like "mercury in the water" is very subtle and people often unawaringly overlook possibility. It's like a restaurant lying to you. Thus, that's a crappy crappy example.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Rick And hey Os, if you want to flack for Big Tobacco and call others who don't Nazis, that is your business.

I believe he was flacking for personal rights; not for Big Tobacco. There is no denying that restricting personal rights through government legislation is leaning towards fascism.

Quote by: Rick And my lungs are my property. You want to trash yours that is also your business, but leave my property alone.

Since when was a privately owned establishment your property?

[madprophet]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That might be true.. but like I said, you freaking ADDED those words, kiddo.

Yes, those are my words. See, here's what you're not understanding: the words are in brackets, which signals to anyone who knows the rules of quotation that I was inserting words that were implied in the quote. I did not "add words," I placed in my own words, in brackets, that you were replying to. For clarity. There was nothing dishonest about it. Because I used brackets. The accepted standard for using clarifying words in a quotation. Brackets. "Yes you have" is not an intelligable statement. What "had I" done, exactly? I had "stated an opinion," according to you.

Now, "kiddo," maybe you should increase your knowledge about how intelligent people use proper English grammer before you freak out about stupid shit like brackets in a quote.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I already told you, dear. Let me remind you. But, this will be the last time. So don't miss it again! Also, things like "mercury in the water" is very subtle and people often unawaringly overlook possibility. It's like a restaurant lying to you. Thus, that's a crappy crappy example.

Okay, honeypie, sugarrface, cuddlybum, snickerdoodle. So, you retract your previous statement that:

[T]he government is DICTATING what a PRIVATE business does. THAT is unconstitutional.

As you agree that it is, in fact, Constitutional for the government to do just that, with a justifiable cause.

[madprophet]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I believe he was flacking for personal rights; not for Big Tobacco.

Yup, and it's just a great big coincidence that the Libertarian position on "personal rights" nearly always coincides with Big Business interests.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet Yes, those are my words. See, here's what you're not understanding: the words are in brackets, which signals to anyone who knows the rules of quotation that I was inserting words that were implied in the quote. I did not "add words," I placed in my own words, in brackets, that you were replying to. For clarity. There was nothing dishonest about it. Because I used brackets. The accepted standard for using clarifying words in a quotation. Brackets. "Yes you have" is not an intelligable statement. What "had I" done, exactly? I had "stated an opinion," according to you.

Quote by: madprophet Now, "kiddo," maybe you should increase your knowledge about how intelligent people use proper English grammer before you freak out about stupid shit like brackets in a quote.

madprophet! You never cease to amaze me!

Here we go again.

You added those words, there is no denying that. But then you made comments about the WORDS you ADDED. That is just plain stupid of you.

Quote by: madprophet Okay, honeypie, sugarrface, cuddlybum, snickerdoodle. So, you retract your previous statement that: As you agree that it is, in fact, Constitutional for the government to do just that, with a justifiable cause.

Nope! I simply defend constitutional ideals! You are wrong again. Sorry!

[madprophet]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer madprophet! You never cease to amaze me! Here we go again. You added those words, there is no denying that. But then you made comments about the WORDS you ADDED. That is just plain stupid of you.

Are you arguing that I did something dishonest? Are you? Are you saying that you never said originally that I had stated an opinion and then later complained that no one had said that I had stated an opinion? Are you? It doesn't matter how OFTEN you CAPITALIZE words, I FOLLWED the RULES of QUOTATION and YOU are JUST being STUPID.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Nope! I simply defend constitutional ideals! You are wrong again. Sorry!

Fine, tell me how it is constitutional for the government to DICTATE to a PRIVATE business how much MERCURY is in their WATER. Please.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: madprophet Yup, and it's just a great big coincidence that the Libertarian position on "personal rights" nearly always coincides with Big Business interests.

The "libertarian position" is not about benefiting big business; it is about protecting the rights of everyone. It benefits big business, small businesses which are now in financial trouble because of smoking bans, smokers and even the non smokers who are too short sighted to see the gradual erosion of their personal freedoms. So what if it happens to coincide with big business interests? Unless you can argue that the integrity of the position is somehow compromised by this, it makes no difference.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet Are you arguing that I did something dishonest? Are you? Are you saying that you never said originally that I had stated an opinion and then later complained that no one had said that I had stated an opinion? Are you? It doesn't matter how OFTEN you CAPITALIZE words, I FOLLWED the RULES of QUOTATION and YOU are JUST being STUPID.

No, you commented on |THE| words *YOU* A|]|]ED.

Quote by: madprophet Fine, tell me how it is constitutional for the government to DICTATE to a PRIVATE business how much MERCURY is in their WATER. Please.

Because it infringes on personal rights described in the constitution.

[madprophet]

Yes, it's just a coincidence. Like it's just a coincidence that the Cato Institute recieves funding from the Tobacco Industry, among dozens of other Corporate benefactors. Yup, all coincidence.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, you commented on |THE| words *YOU* A|]|]ED.

Are they a secret? Are we not supposed to talk about the words in the brackets? Are they classified? Eyes only? Should I be whispering?

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Because it infringes on personal rights described in the constitution.

Woo, that's some argument! I'm awash in citations and precedent! I can't breathe!!!

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific? Which personal rights described in the Constitution? Where? Are there laws or court cases that expand the definitions? I know it's a lot of trouble to open your copy of the Constitution that you keep on the coffee table next to the bible, or to do a Google search to confirm information you have in your brain, but could you at least try to convince me? I have mentioned that I've an open mind on this subject, right? I have not made up my mind either way. And I probably lean your way seeing as I'm a smoker who frequents bars and strip clubs.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: madprophet Yes, it's just a coincidence. Like it's just a coincidence that the Cato Institute recieves funding from the Tobacco Industry, among dozens of other Corporate benefactors. Yup, all coincidence.

I am not and never have been a member of Cato. Therefore, the institute's source of funding is irrelevant. Can you provide evidence that I am being funded by tobacco companies, or that I am speaking on behalf of an organisation which is?

Perhaps you should try refuting the arguments presented, rather than clumsily exhibiting the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

[RickSp]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I believe he was flacking for personal rights; not for Big Tobacco. There is no denying that restricting personal rights through government legislation is leaning towards fascism.

He is repeating the propaganda purchased by Big Tobacco and calling those who don't buy it, nazis. The science behind the risks of second-hand smoke is solid, regardless of the Big Tobacco smoke screen. And by the way, the personal "right" you refer to - the right to pollute the property of others, does not exist.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Since when was a privately owned establishment your property?

My lungs are a privately owned establishement.

This thread is about the science, not whether or not the state should regulate smoking in private establishments. In the best of all possible worlds, no such regulation would be necessary. I can say however that having worked in very smoky offices and having sat through long meetings in closed rooms filled with smokers, I am happy that most offices, bars and restaurants are now smoke free.

Basic libertarian environmental theory argues that you can pollute your own property if that is what you want, but that you are liable for damages if you pollute the property of others. Odd to hear so called libertarians arguing in favor of second-hand death as a "right."

[madprophet]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I am not and never have been a member of Cato. Therefore, the institute's source of funding is irrelevant. Can you provide evidence that I am being funded by tobacco companies, or that I am speaking on behalf of an organisation which is? Perhaps you should try refuting the arguments presented, rather than clumsily exhibiting the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

We are talking about the "Libertarian Positition" there, buddy. You said:

So what if it happens to coincide with big business interests? Unless you can argue that the integrity of the position is somehow compromised by this, it makes no difference.

And since the Cato Institute is a major source of this anti-science bullshit you people are trying to pawn off as an argument (It's linked twice in the original post on this thread,) I took up your challenge and showed how the "Libertarian position" is compromised. There was nothing clumsy about it. Here, let me demonstrate again:

Junkscience.Com, also linked twice in the original post, was founded and is run by Steve Milloy, who spent time as an actual flak for the Tobacco Industry at the PR firm APCO. As a lobbyist he also worked for the American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, the International Food Additives Council, and FMC Corporation. He also happens to be an "adjunct scholar" at Cato. The site was funded from the very start by Philip Morris (who makes my brand of death sticks,) and run through a front group, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was eventually exposed. One, Two, Three, four and five.

There are no arguments presented here, just bullshit pumped out by Industry goons to muddy a previously crystal clear subject in order to manipulate a bunch of retards who will believe anything with the words "personal rights" tacked on it.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: There is no factual, scientific argument that refutes the hazards of passive smoking. Period.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rick said: And hey Os, if you want to flack for Big Tobacco and call others who don't Nazis, that is your business. And my lungs are my property. You want to trash yours that is also your business, but leave my property alone.

I say:
Rick, its simple.

I am for individual property rights, not "Big Tobacco". It isn't my fault you can't connect the dots, or prefer to label me instead.

Also, yes, I think it is fairly evident that people who are against property rights, and individual rights, obviously aren't acting in MY or liberties best intrest, nor do they observe the basic rights that are the very platform of peaceful society. Does that make them Nazis? Literally, no, but in a form of derogatory, comparative ideals.... kinda.

Lastly, if you RESPECT your property (your lungs), you won't go to smoking establishments, and the "supposed danger" that you so fear, won't even exist.
If you truly believe in the free market ideals you have so often professed, you would know that the market will provide smoking AND non-smoking services and goods IF there is sufficient demand, and the freedom by GOVERNMENT to do so.