This angers me very much!

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:29 am

If you want to talk hazardous to your health then lets talk cars, cars pump out more polution in a day than the average smoker would in a month of hard smoking, then add to this the people who every year are run over or involved in a fatal car crashes and you will fast develop the picture that cars are near homicidal in intent and execution. So why is no one trying to ban cars, or planes (they pollute like a bastard)< or oil tankers. The real reason that cigarettes are targeted is that the have no obvious use to non smokers, but then cabbage has no obvious use to me and I am not trying to ban it, this leads me to believe that the real reason we are discussing this now which is that the antismoking lobby are a bunch of neo nazi assholes who won't stop until everyone is the same as them: dull, uninteresting lifelss pieces of dirt. Or am I looking at things the wrong way?

by **Colonel Savage** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:48 am

Originally posted by SavageParrot
this leads me to believe that the real reason we are discussing this now which is that the antismoking lobby are a bunch of neo nazi assholes who won't stop until everyone is the same as them: dull, uninteresting lifelss pieces of dirt. Or am I looking at things the wrong way?

Does that mean that smokers charismatic and lively?

by **Murgatroyd** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:28 am

Originally posted by Colonel Savage
Does that mean that smokers charismatic and lively?

Yeah, man, haven't you seen the advertisements?

as opposed to...

These guys who are a bunch of sticks-in-the-mud.

/sarcasm

by **CrazyBri** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:47 am

Originally posted by SavageParrot
If you want to talk hazardous to your health then lets talk cars, cars pump out more polution in a day than the average smoker would in a month of hard smoking, then add to this the people who every year are run over or involved in a fatal car crashes and you will fast develop the picture that cars are near homicidal in intent and execution. So why is no one trying to ban cars, or planes (they pollute like a bastard)< or oil tankers.

Hmmm I'd guess that it has to do with the fact that cars and planes have many useful purposes such as ummm transportation.

I'm a non-smoker and I don't care if others smoke as long as the smoke isn't in my face. My sinuses go crazy when there are enough smokers in a room. Basically it causes my throat to get itchy,my nose to start running (yum) and my eyes to water up and become bloodshot red (ie bar,restaurant, club etc). Pollution from cars doesn't have this effect on me.

I'm all for people smoking who insist on doing it because that's their choice as long as it doesn't make things miserable for others. Don't assume that people who don't smoke are up tight ,ultra conservative and out to get you. If you had the symptoms I described you wouldn't care for cigarrettes or cigars either.

@C. Murgatroyd -- I love that ad

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:09 am

I don't care if you don't smoke, I don't mind that you don't like smoking, I don't mind no smoking restaurants or public buildings, what I dislike is anti smoking lobbyists who want to stop people from smoking, EVEN ON THE STREET! This is just the suppression of basic freedom to please a small group of mindless interfering of idiots

by **RCglider** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:16 am

Originally posted by CrazyBri

Don't assume that people who don't smoke are up tight ,ultra conservative and out to get you. If you had the symptoms I described you wouldn't care for cigarrettes or cigars either.

@C. Murgatroyd -- I love that ad

LOL, where do you guys come up with the cliche' it's the "ultra conservative" warring with smokers?
I don't smoke and never will, but tobacco is a legal substance and on private property (restaruants, stores etc.) if the owner wishes to allow smoking, what business is it of the government to say he can't?
If smoking is so evil, then tobacco should be banned, period. It never will because it brings in too much money for the politicians.

Every person that eats carrots will die. It's true!

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:19 am

Yes carrots are THE DEVIL!!!!

Muahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by **Murgatroyd** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:26 am

My dad summed it up for me.

"You smoke - you die. You don't smoke - you're still gonna die."

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:46 am

Excelllent point Murg!

I don't care if you don't smoke, I don't mind that you don't like smoking, I don't mind no smoking restaurants or public buildings, what I dislike is anti smoking lobbyists who want to stop people from smoking, EVEN ON THE STREET! This is just the suppression of basic freedom to please a small group of mindless interfering of idiots

Best point yet!

If you are not going to make smoking itself illegal then stop saying to private businesses what kind of customers they MUST cater to. If its popular to have NO SMOKING in a restaraunt bar then market forces will drive people to run their business that way. If people want to go out have a beer and a smoke then they will go to the appropriate place.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY! nor common sense for that matter.

A carton of premium brand ciagarettes cost about 30$ where I live. It used to be twenty and half went to the tobacco company and half went to the Government for taxes. After all those big lawsuits the price went to thirty. Now ten bucks goes to the tobacco company and twenty goes to the government in taxes and settlements.

Do you honestly think that any politician is going to look at "the loss of revenue" (yes they call OUR money that they TAKE revenue, Its not your money you are just holding it for the government, temporarily) involved here and say ban smoking?

/Social rant off.

by **RCglider** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:37 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Excelllent point Murg!

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY! nor common sense for that matter.

This phrase gets thrown around a lot. Our basic laws are all based in morality. When someone (plurality) says "you cannot legislate morality", it's usually used as justification of their behavior. For example, what's really wrong with child pornography? It's a slippery slope.

by **CrazyBri** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:31 pm

Ok the "ultra conservative" comment was a poor choice of words. Also SavageParrot, I'm not against smoking on the street or anything extreme like that.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:32 pm

Wrong RCglider.

Our laws are based on one concept and one concept only. Enforcement of contracts. Wether business, social or what-have-you. Its when you start putting in "morality" that you get stupid things like this. Prohibition is a most excellent example of attempting to legislate moraity.

Look how that turned out.

by **RCglider** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:23 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Wrong RCglider.

Our laws are based on one concept and one concept only. Enforcement of contracts. Wether business, social or what-have-you. Its when you start putting in "morality" that you get stupid things like this. Prohibition is a most excellent example of attempting to legislate moraity.

Look how that turned out.

For contractual matters, you are correct. However, what you are saying is a variation of the Libertarian model which is basically anarchist. It is impossible for civilization to exist without morals. Argue all you want, history is replete with examples.

I would ask what is the source for our most basic Rights according to the Bill of Rights. It's called inalienable, which means not bestowed by Governments (men), but by God. That is a moral distinction in itself.

Society sets standards. That we cannot expect all to submit to these standards does not stop us from legislating them. All laws concerning murder, rape, theft, fraud, (go down the list) are moral judgments that these things should not happen. That is legislation of morals. It is behavior that we cannot legislate, however, clear standards, with consequences for violation, usually reduce unacceptable behavior.

Again I ask, what is wrong with child pornography and why are there laws against it? Is it immoral?

The term "you can't legislate morality" is accurate in that no matter what laws are enacted, there will always be segments of society that disagree with or break them. Clearly however, we do legislate morality.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:33 pm

Was I just called a Libertarian?:confused:

[Edit]

and i spelled morality wrong!:D

by **Murgatroyd** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:39 pm

Man, you guys gotta read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. He goes in-depth as to how civilizations formed laws and self-policing. Really interesting stuff.

I'll sum up the pertinant part right here.

Laws were developed when societies became so large (over a few hundred people) to give people a reason not to kill one another when there became an encounter between strangers. Prior to that, the band was small enough so that if the two strangers weren't directly related, they had relatives who knew each other - an inherent reason not to kill one another.

Laws evolved out of an attempt to expand population and gain power.

Very, very, very interesting and informitive book.

This angers me very much!

Who is online