^^my point exactly. i'm not wasting my time with this anymore.

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM. Reason : -]

4/2/2009 11:29:16 AM

I'm sorry you couldn't make any legitimate points for your side of the argument without having them all completely shot down

Have a nice day

4/2/2009 11:30:16 AM

Yes, 50% is less probable than 100%.

4/2/2009 11:32:59 AM

You fucking anti-smoking nazis are losing the debate. You go ahead with your bullshit ban and see how long it lasts.



[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:34 AM. Reason : ]

4/2/2009 11:34:11 AM

What debate are you referring to? A TWW debate? I don't believe it has much pull in the NC General Assembly.

4/2/2009 11:36:18 AM

smoking is a personal choice.
being around smoking is a personal choice.
banning smoking in an establishment you own should be a personal choice.

i don't see how there's any way around that.

4/2/2009 11:36:27 AM

^
Exactly.

Quote :

"What debate are you referring to? A TWW debate? I don't believe it has much pull in the NC General Assembly"

The general debate. And of course it doesn't matter in the NC General Assembly -- all that matters there is popularity, connections, and money.

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

4/2/2009 11:36:54 AM

and you keep drawing neat cartoons

4/2/2009 11:36:55 AM

^

4/2/2009 11:38:47 AM

Quote :

"Yes, 50% is less probable than 100%."

I didn't realize 100% of people exposed to 2nd hand smoke suffer health risks from it, could you be so kind as to provide a link to your source?

nm i found it

Quote :

"Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke"

wow i didn't realize only 3,000 people were exposed to 2nd hand smoke each year, gosh thats a lot less than I thought!

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:41 AM. Reason : .]

4/2/2009 11:40:07 AM

death is not the only heath risk on the planet. and by the way your 'fact' is bogus.

Quote :

"Secondhand smoke causes almost 50,000 deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year, including approximately 3,400 from lung cancer and 22,700-69,600 from heart disease.5 "

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:45 AM. Reason : df]

4/2/2009 11:43:27 AM

you're right...take alcohol poisoning for example

i wonder how they pinpoint the heart disease deaths as being caused by 2nd hand smoke, as opposed to eating a shitty diet, considering heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the United States, independent of exposure to smoke

i also wonder how many of those people were forced to be exposed to the 2nd hand smoke, versus people who chose to put themselves in contact with 2nd hand smoke

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

4/2/2009 11:44:21 AM

You can ask them if you want. 'They' is the California EPA who published that statistic in their report:

'Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxi Air Contaiminant" in June of 2005.

Ask the author. I'm curious too. If you are really feeling inquisitive today I have a few more statistics from other agencies you might want to investigate.



[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : fg]

4/2/2009 11:50:46 AM

TreeTwista10 and Willy Nilly

Please find my discussion I held on page 6, and address those points if you wish as opposed to making blanket statements which have little relevance and whose extremes damage their credibility.

Quote :

"What the fuck do you think democracy is?... a way to deny minority rights? That's what it sounds like you're saying. So what if some 51% gay city want to ban heterosexual sex? Majority rules, right? Liberty and Justice for All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Social Democracy"

This is an example of the extremes about which I speak. The issue with smoking is smoking is a choice, and homosexual sex is an incredibly poor example because no one is outlawing smoking for those people in their homes or overall. No rights are being denied of smokers

4/2/2009 11:56:29 AM

The argument is for the right of the business owner to decide if they want their establishment to be non-smoking or not, not if smokers have the right to light up anywhere they want.

4/2/2009 11:59:03 AM

but under that argument, what if we left it up to the restaurant owner to determine what is deemed "sanitary" food storage & cooking standards? where do we draw the line between the owner's choice and government intervention for public health issues?

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 12:02 PM. Reason : -]

4/2/2009 12:01:08 PM

find me a market of customers looking for an unsanitary or unhealthy food place and maybe that argument holds water.

Not to mention what I said about this several pages back, you can walk into any bar and automatically see/smell people smoking. You can't walk in and know if the kitchen is clean or the food is prepared properly.

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2009 12:01:49 PM

^maybe the people who eat at Gumby's

4/2/2009 12:02:35 PM

ParksNrec that is where the arguement started. And it is also a point I agree with. I simply came in to help out when TreeTwista's argument became:

Quote :

"Go to a different bar then if you're so worried about your health...you're obviously not worried about the health of your liver, just your lungs Besides, me driving down the street in an automobile negatively affects the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk BAN EVERYTHING"

and WillNilly's argument became:

Quote :

"You fucking anti-smoking nazis are losing the debate. You go ahead with your bullshit ban and see how long it lasts."

The two of them almost appear incapable of holding a normal discussion without flying off the handle.

4/2/2009 12:04:26 PM

When you try to promote "public health" as your reasoning for supporting this ban, when in reality all you care about is not having to smell smoke when you go out drinking, I'll call you out for it

This is a college messageboard...by and large people don't give a flying fuck about the well-being of the public health...they might care about their own health, but more often they want to be able to go out and drink without dealing with smokers...thats a bullshit reason

How come so many non-smokers oppose this ban? Because they realize that people have choices and responsibility and don't need the government to hold their dick when they pee

I'll be crass about it when people bring up the same arguments that have already been shot down...this is Chit Chat after all

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2009 12:05:35 PM

<---- check it out 6677. is there a word for that?

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM. Reason : df]

4/2/2009 12:06:28 PM

Quote :

"but under that argument, what if we left it up to the restaurant owner to determine what is deemed "sanitary" food storage & cooking standards? where do we draw the line between the owner's choice and government intervention for public health issues?"

your argument is truly pathetic.

this is the most important issue here:

Quote :

"The argument is for the right of the business owner to decide if they want their establishment to be non-smoking or not, not if smokers have the right to light up anywhere they want."

Quote :

"i love how people actually try to argue "if you're gonna ban smoking indoors then you should ban drinking and fast food too" ... comparing apples to apples"

man those apples to apples comparisons really hurt your argument don't they?

4/2/2009 12:10:10 PM

^ you didn't say a single thing there.

4/2/2009 12:12:14 PM

he didn't have to...all the points he was addressing have already been brought up, and shot down in this thread

again how come so many non-smokers oppose this ban? do any of the people who support the ban ever question this, question the logic of the non-smokers' who oppose the ban? that maybe its not as simple as 'smoking is not good for you, therefore it should be banned at public places'?

last i checked, as long as you are at least 18 years old, cigarettes are legal

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2009 12:13:20 PM

^^^whatever, man.

I can see both sides of the fence in this issue (ParksNrec I agree with some of your points).

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 12:14 PM. Reason : h]

4/2/2009 12:14:43 PM

^^ I'm aware. And We have already read them. Why restate it.

4/2/2009 12:18:27 PM

its so hard to take any of those two seriously.

There are a lot of things at stake here. The point I made in my post is that if your argument is that this tramples on liberty then I can accept that, but if liberty is your main point then you would also are strongly support a ban on smoking in public spaces such as parks and outside areas that are communal to all citizens. However, i suspect you wouldn't be for such a ban. Its your lack of internal consistency that bothers me, and not so much your position on this one issue.

4/2/2009 12:19:56 PM

I would not be generally opposed to a ban of smoking in public parks/common areas owned and operated by the government. Privately owned public spaces would be a different matter.

4/2/2009 12:29:32 PM

as long as you're consistent, I respect that.

But you can be rational.

Tree and lil' willy have issues with that.

4/2/2009 12:30:18 PM

^
Reasons you support this immoral smoking ban:
1) You don't like coming home smelling like smoke
2) Opponents on TWW often "fly off the handle", SO THEY MUST BE WRONG
3) ????? (We're waiting....)


YOU HAVE NOTHING ON THIS. NOTHING!
I CAN ACT AS CRAZY AS I WANT BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT!!!!!!!1984

4/2/2009 1:07:20 PM

you clearly haven't read a single thing i've written because i've expressed my concerns are neither of the two things you've mentioned. perhaps its that you are incapable of reading or do not have an adequate attention span to employ the most simple of reading comprehension.


I will say this about you Willy Nilly
The quality of your argument is only exceeded by the elegance in which you have delivered it.

4/2/2009 2:09:37 PM

Health concerns aside.

Don't care if I'm infringing on your "rights."

You're infringing on my ability to go home without smelling like I rolled around in an ash tray.

Screw you smokers.

4/2/2009 2:20:31 PM

IRS I don't even know what you're arguing...you say that your rights are being infringed upon wherever the smoke permeates including out in public, outside...you talk about how if the minority of people owned cars, then people would probably think they should be banned...then you say something about how religion is a choice, yet you refuse to acknowledge that going to a bar that allows smoking is also a choice...I really have no earthly idea what you're arguing...this is based on what I read of your posts on page 6...hopefully theres something I'm missing because you haven't really said anything definitively

4/2/2009 2:21:55 PM

There actually is a lot you're missing.

The religion is a choice was in response to a coconuts to apples comparison Vix tried to make. The car correlation was the same as well. My point was expressed in the first post I made to her. I expressed rather concretely that I feel going into a bar with smoking is a choice, and that someone has the options of various bars to render as merchants for their service. As such I'm completely accepting of people protesting against ruling out smoking in bars on grounds of infringement of liberty; however, if this is the stance they take I would also expect them to be against smoking in public common place. This is about what I spoke so definitively. I believe at some point I even asked a direct yes or no question since Vix refused to directly address the question at hand.

So I will now pose it to you, and willly.

Quote :

"1. can you acknowledge that smoking in public infringes on the rights of others? "

By public I mean common public space. This is a simple Yes or No question. You can feel free to elaborate, but at least addressing a solid position one way or the other would be appreciated.

4/2/2009 2:35:35 PM

[words] take it to the soap box

4/2/2009 2:47:13 PM

Quote :

"Can you acknowledge that smoking in public infringes on the rights of others? By public I mean common public space"

You're going to have to be more specific. Do you mean sidewalks, parks, etc? Or are you including a bar or restaurant as well?

4/2/2009 3:45:17 PM

I do not mean bars and restaurants, at all, clearly. They do not constitute as common public space, as they are privately owned. I felt this was clear from my initial rant on page six and if not by that then by the distinction I made between smoking in bars and that of the outside. It was for this reason that I took the efforts to clarify common public space.

In this would be:

sidewalks, as they are owned by the city.
parks, state or local.
the outside of museums.
etc...
and would even extend to places which receive government subsidies.

4/2/2009 3:56:11 PM

Quote :

"N.C. House passes limited smoking ban The North Carolina House approved a ban Thursday on secondhand smoke at restaurants and other businesses where children are present."

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/4856263/

woohoo!!!!!!

4/2/2009 4:01:39 PM

i love personal freedom and all that but this is one ill be glad to yell about and then quietly sit back and smile while it passes

living in a smoke free bar/restaurant area is ftw

4/2/2009 4:07:49 PM

I absolute abhor going to a place that allows smoking. That said, I think this is a crappy regulation, and a blow to personal property rights.

4/2/2009 4:12:58 PM

The only silver lining to this bullshit is that they gutted the original bill to allow for pretty much all bars to just put up signage saying nobody under 18 allowed and continue as normal. I doubt the under 18 crowd is a big demographic for most bars. So this will mostly affect family restaurants and chains like Outback that have active bars, although I wouldn't be surprised if they could set a time like after 9pm when nobody under 18 will be allowed and smoking can resume.

4/2/2009 4:19:04 PM

^ Yeah, I can see restaurants exploiting major loopholes with the watered-down version of the bill.

But it's a step in the right direction towards a smoke-free state.

4/2/2009 4:26:49 PM

NC will never be a smoke free state (unless they somehow manage to make tobacco illegal)

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2009 4:27:55 PM

^^^ id be interested to see if that happens. I dont doubt it will in some places.

This will stand in court. Theres nothing constitutional about it. Its a health and safety issue, which those normally win. How many times have seatbelts and speeding been brought up for issues, a lot; now how many times have they won, very few.

Honestly Im glad this is brought up. Im suprised Cary hasnt passed an ordnance banning it everywere </cary bashing>

Regardless what I said to start, I think honestly most restaurants want more a family crowd vs a bar crowd and will ban it period, no time restraints.

4/2/2009 4:30:08 PM

...time to water the tree of liberty.

Quote :

"Theres nothing constitutional about it"

That's right -- it's 100% unconstitutional

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2009 4:30:50 PM

Quote :

"I think honestly most restaurants want more a family crowd vs a bar crowd and will ban it period"

restaurants have had the ability to be smoke free forever if they wanted to, why wouldn't they have done that themselves if it was what they wanted?



[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM. Reason : include quote to be more clear]

4/2/2009 4:31:11 PM

^
Exactly.

4/2/2009 4:32:46 PM

restaurants have had the ability to be smoke free forever if they wanted to, why wouldn't they have done that themselves if it was what they wanted?

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 4:34 PM. Reason : This sucks for places like MoJoe's.]

4/2/2009 4:33:26 PM

Quote :

"sidewalks, as they are owned by the city. parks, state or local. the outside of museums. etc... and would even extend to places which receive government subsidies."

well its not a simple Yes or No question

If I'm smoking and walking down the sidewalk and pass by you, am I infringing on your rights? I dunno. Are cars infringing on your rights in smoggy cities like Los Angeles? Say I am infringing on your rights. Should I be allowed to smoke on an empty sidewalk, but forced to put it out when someone comes by? Should I have the choice to smoke on a sidewalk and should you have the choice to cross the street to not be exposed to it? How about if I'm on a scaffold 10' off the ground...do you have rights to airspace up to a certain height?

This is retarded.

4/2/2009 4:34:26 PM

America dies a little every day.

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2009 4:40:22 PM