| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11686 Registered: 1-2003  |
you say that taxation is not wrong and therefore argue that all taxation is good. Wrong again. You're really good at extrapolating my views into views that I do not hold. I am saying that not all taxation is wrong. That does not mean, by extension, that all taxation is right! Now, given that taxes, which do impinge, can be a good thing overall, so can public health laws, which impinge on individuals' rights to enjoy themselves. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1092 Registered: 3-2004  |
Secondhand smoke kills innocent people, while i do not support the tobacco industry in any manner, there is no empirical proof to support your statement. in actuallity the WHO submitted a report that says there is no proof to the idea that second hand smoke has ever killled anyone. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1093 Registered: 3-2004 |
Now, given that taxes, which do impinge, can be a good thing overall, so can public health laws, which impinge on individuals' rights to enjoy themselves. the issues are apple and oranges. the taxes that we can both agree are necesssary for society are used to suppport a government that benefits us all as a society. anti smoking legislation is misguided. if the reason behind the legislation is truly for public health reasons then shouldnt the legislation actually be to ban the sale of tobacco altogether? do people only get lung cancer in restaurants? this legislation is not about public health at all. it is about some people realizing that restaurantss and bars arent going to cater to their wishes so therefore they must force them through self-interested legislation placed under the self righteous banner of public health. if public health is what they were truly concerned with then they would outlaw the sale and use of tobacco. they would be protesting the sale of fast food due to its contribution to the obesity health problems the nation faces. they would be trying to ban the sale of alcohol due to the health problems and drunken driving related deaths. yet this doesnt happen. guess its really not all about "public health". it is about wanting to eat in a certain restaurant, under certain conditions, and forcing the restaurant to meet those conditions through legislation since the restaurant has already shown they dont care enough about your business to change voluntarily. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 337 Registered: 6-2001  |
Here's a good article regarding secondhand smoke: http://whyquit.com/whyquit/LinksETS.html Here's an excerpt: Secondhand smoke is not a battle between "us and them." It's a battle for public health - all of the public. As much as we need to awaken our brother and sister smokers to the impact of forcing others to breath our addiction, we must awaken those championing clean indoor air to the realization that the solution is love not hate, education not isolation, and assistance not resistance. We need to teach them that the moment a child or teen succumbs to the pressures and influence of years of tobacco industry marketing, that the lies, not the child, are the enemy. Secondhand smoke is a symptom not the problem. The problem is dependency ignorance and a community climate that breeds youth, and young adult, nicotine dependency. Look closely above the candy racks in your neighborhood convenience store. Do you really think the tobacco ads are there by chance? What goes through the mind of a twelve year-old when day after day windows in grocery stores, gas stations and even the neighborhood pharmacy tell them that life without tobacco isn't living? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1096 Registered: 3-2004 |
so we need to enact these laws to make up for a lack of parental direction and oversight? hey, anything we can do to take the burden of parentinf off parents i am all for. again i ask, if this is about public health then shouldnt the legislation be to ban the sale of tobacco? do people only get cancer in restaurants? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 930 Registered: 2-2002 |
I don't (yet) see the government telling people that they can't smoke, -just some places where they can't. Meanwhile, (from Bloomberg news). "Tobacco companies worldwide faced tighter government restrictions on smoking and cigarette ads last year, as well as declining numbers of smokers and higher taxes. Yet shares of the three biggest companies -- Altria Group Inc., British American Tobacco Plc and Japan Tobacco Inc. -- are surging to records. Profits are rising as cigarette makers expand in poorer countries such as Indonesia and Russia, where smokers are switching to more expensive brands. The addictive nature of nicotine also helped manufacturers raise prices, something most consumer-goods companies are struggling to do. ...legal risk in the U.S. is dropping and investors are realizing consumers often respond to public smoking bans by SMOKING IN DIFFERENT PLACES rather than quitting, said Michael Smith, an analyst at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in London." | ||
| galileo Citizen Username: Galileo Post Number: 212 Registered: 7-2001 |
Libertarian - You've lost this debate. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1103 Registered: 3-2004 |
only in your mind because it was made up before the debate began | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 453 Registered: 2-2003 |
Libertarian, Yesterday I asked smokers:
You responded:
And you explained that you weren't answering my question, but just responding to a "contentious" question with another "contentious" question. Let's look at the problem from another angle. Do you object to a health code requirement that restaurants must require their employees to wash their hands after using the toilet? And if an employee objected to such a requirement, would I be "contentious" if I asked that employee: On what basis do you think you have the right to place traces of your fecal matter on my food? Perhaps I've missed this on the thread, but, to put the issue on a more general level, do you recognize society's right to require restaurant owners provide a safe environment for their customers? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1108 Registered: 3-2004 |
no one claims the right to put fecal matter on food. no one sees these things as rights. you are using the word "rights" in an erroneous manner. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 338 Registered: 6-2001 |
Lib - In 1989, millions of cases of imported fruit were banned after a small amount of cyanide was found in just two grapes. There’s 33 times more cyanide in a single cigarette. Do you think it was overreactive to recall the fruit? What level of cyanide is acceptable to you? | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 339 Registered: 6-2001 |
Environmental Tobacco Smoke has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. Can someone list more Group A carcinogens that are allowed in indoor public places? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 455 Registered: 2-2003 |
Libertarian, You say that smokers who oppose smoking bans in restaurants are not claiming a right to pump smoke into my lungs. If not a right, then on what basis do you assert these smokers -- who oppose smoking bans in restaurants -- are claiming that they should not be prevented from pumping smoke into my lungs in a restaurant? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1110 Registered: 3-2004 |
the point is that no one is forcing you to enter the restaurant. the restaurant owner has made a choice to allow smoking much like you have the choice to not give him your business. if he values your business he will ban smoking. if he does not value your business he will choose to allow smoking. you can always go to a restaurant that values customers with your sensibilities. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1111 Registered: 3-2004 |
Lib - In 1989, millions of cases of imported fruit were banned after a small amount of cyanide was found in just two grapes. There’s 33 times more cyanide in a single cigarette. Do you think it was overreactive to recall the fruit? What level of cyanide is acceptable to you? this goes back to the point i made earlier. if this is about health issues then instead of fighting to ban smoking in restaurants you should be fighting to get the selling of tobacco as illegal. outlaw tobacco. do people only get cancer in restaurants? yet you never hear this argument, why? for answer see my earlier post on the matter. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6869 Registered: 5-2001 |
Libertarian: I understand your point regarding unnecessary infringement of government on personal rights and that you consider the right of a person to smoke to be one of those rights. Let's take the discussion a little further. There are no laws in this country against owning a gun but there are laws against using a gun to injure another person, at least in certain situations. There are no laws in this country against consuming alcoholic beverages in most parts of the country but there are laws against driving drunk and injuring another person while doing so. There are no laws in this country against possessing matches but there is a law against using matches or any other open flame source to burn down someone's house or place of business. Thus, even though it is legal to smoke tobacco products in this country, why should it be legal to smoke in such a manner as to cause bodily injury to those around you? Why should the health and well-being of employees and patrons of a public establishment be endangered because someone wants to light up in a public enclosed space? | ||
| mickey Citizen Username: Mickey Post Number: 364 Registered: 10-2001 |
Joan, that was great. Jamie, I emailed Assemblyman Sires and our 3 reps: Hackett, Mckeon and Codey. Do you think we have a good shot at a smoke free NJ? I hope so!!! | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4624 Registered: 9-2001  |
Libertarian: Joan as usual makes a lot of sense, however, let me add one more question: Why don't you go along with most of your fellow neighbors on-line and give this argument up? Don't Libertarian's believe in majority rule? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8258 Registered: 4-1997  |
Libertarians prefer maintaining personal freedoms over legislated restrictions.
http://www.lp.org/organization/history.shtml | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 340 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mickey, I think there's a pretty good shot we'll be smoke free. Looks like the bill will go to the Assembly Health Committee on Thursday. When it comes to Health Committees - this legislation is a no-brainer. My main concern here is that they might call for an amendment to include casino floors, which means it would have to be tossed back to the senate for another vote. My hope is that they pass it as is and make any amendments later. I think that if it passes the Assembly Health Committee, it'll probably go to the General Assembly on the 9th. If all things go well, law goes into effect 90 days later. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1112 Registered: 3-2004 |
why should it be legal to smoke in such a manner as to cause bodily injury to those around you? Why should the health and well-being of employees and patrons of a public establishment be endangered because someone wants to light up in a public enclosed space? 1. it only causes bodily harm to others around if those people CHOOSE to be around smokers. if they CHOOSE to be near them. 2. a bar or restaurant is not a public space. it is a privately owned business. PRIVATELY owned. if he/she chosses to allow smoking then you are under no restriction to enter the business. that is the beauty of choice and freedom. Don't Libertarian's believe in majority rule? we do. as long as individual freedom is not impinged by the tyranny of the masses. a subject that both Jefferson and Madison went into great lenghts about. Why don't you go along with most of your fellow neighbors on-line and give this argument up? because being an american endows me with the personal freedom to make a choice and voice my opinion based on my choice. choice is what freedom is all about. something the majority of people in this thread are fighting against. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 341 Registered: 6-2001 |
I'm mainly fighting against premature death. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1113 Registered: 3-2004 |
but only if you get sick in a restaurant. preemature death elsewhere is ok. if someone were to legislate a restriction on the selections of food you could order from a restaurant because some foods are unhealthy, you would go nuts. you are trying to do almost the exact same thing. you are fighting to restrict freedom of choice in the name of a fashionable cause that does not address in any real manner the dangers you claim to be fighting. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 342 Registered: 6-2001 |
ok, let's go back to this unanswered question: Environmental Tobacco Smoke has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. Can someone list more Group A carcinogens that are allowed in indoor public places? Should we allow asbestos to be used for insulation again, or have benzene flow into public areas? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1115 Registered: 3-2004 |
obviously the answers to your questions are no. those things are banned. why then arent you fighting to ban the sale and use of tobacco? banning it from restaurants, ones that you have a choice not to enter, seems like such a puny effort in the face of this incredible health hazard. again i point out, a restaurant or bar is not a public space, such as you reference in your question. they are private establishments. that is why they have the right not to serve you. if your motives are truly altruistic then the banning of tobacco seems to make much more sense to your point. the method that you all have chosen to support doesnt really tackle the health issue of tobacco products and seems more like a self-righteous group of fashionable cause band wagon jumpers whining cause the restaurant they want to go to doesnt care enough about their business to change their policies. if they truly cared about the dangerous health issue of tobacco they would fight for its removal from the US economic table | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11709 Registered: 1-2003 |
How about dissolving the ban of asbestos? People can choose whether to enter buildings with asbestos. Asbestos is the most cost effective insulation. Why should a building owner have to go through the extra expense of using alternative insulation just to protect people who can protect themselves just by not entering the building? Do you think the ban was a mistake? If not, why not? The point here is that government can apply standards to society, even though it's bad for some. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1119 Registered: 3-2004 |
they didnt ban buildings from using asbestos. the government banned the production of asbestos for all residential and most commercial properties. much like restaurants shouldnt be forced to ban smoking but tobacco should be banned from being produced if this dire health issue is the true concern of those supporting the ban. the difference is subtle but makes all the difference. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11710 Registered: 1-2003 |
I know this will sound disrespectful, and I don't mean it to, but I say it not because it's hurtful but because it's true. The reason it's so frustrating to argue with you is that you don't follow logic very well. You really don't. Why am I trying again? If it's OK with you to allow the production and consumption of cigarettes (is that assumption correct?) and to leave it up to who allows it on his property, then why not apply the same rule for asbestos? Let the property owner, rather than the government, decide whether asbestos creates an acceptable risk. What's wrong with that approach? If you provide a certain type of answer, it might be applicable to tobacco. That is why I ask. So please take a stab at it. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1120 Registered: 3-2004 |
you don't follow logic very well. You really don't. the funny thing is that I have been grinding my teeth thinking the same of you. seriously. you also tend to ignore any point that i have made in order to continue with your point. you have never addressed the issue of banning tobacco if it is such a health risk. that forcing restaurants to do it seems like such a puny measure in the face of this horrible health risk. other points that i have made as well. instead you go off on a tangent of hypothetical questions involving completely different products and issues. you seem like a very nice fellow but this has been your modus operandi with me in every discussion you engage me in. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 343 Registered: 6-2001 |
I agree - cigarettes should be banned - but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Banning them from the public space is a good first step though! What do you think on enacting legislation that would inhibit the cigarette company's ability to spike the level of nicotine in their product? Or is that overreaching as well? Also, why do you think this legislation is being passed overwhelming throughout the world? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1121 Registered: 3-2004 |
Banning them from the public space is a good first step thoug bars and restaurants are NOT PUBLIC SPACES!!! Also, why do you think this legislation is being passed overwhelming throughout the world? 1. because it is a good sentiment but enacted in the wrong way. 2. it is a fashionable cause 3. it is easy for politicians to score points by attacking a voting minority to ensure good will from a voting bloc. 4.politicians dont want tobacco to go away, they receive too much money from tobacco companies and our economy relies heavily on tobacco sales. this way they appease you while really doing nothing to stop the intrinsic problem. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 344 Registered: 6-2001 |
bars and restaurants are NOT PUBLIC SPACES????? so how am I able to walk in and out of them so easily? Funny, they seem public to me. If they're truly private, why can't they serve alcohol to members of the PUBLIC under 21? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11711 Registered: 1-2003 |
I agree with Jamie that banning tobacco isn't practicable, though it is a good idea. As a result, it may not be a good idea to hope to improve everyone's health risks. For now, we can focus on the health risks of people who don't want exposure. And I'm not sure what the term is, but a restaurant, while private property, is not totally private, since it invites the public. It's not as public as town hall, but it's not as private as my living room. It might be called a public accomodation or something like that, and I believe public accomodations are subject to some rules of the public. Art, we don't have a majority rule, except in elections. Libertarian, sorry for my harsh words. We're equally frustrated, and that's a shame, but it's also a good sign, that we both want to convey our points to each other. Let's agree to call off the insults, since we're both trying to discuss in good faith, OK? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1123 Registered: 3-2004 |
do you truly believe that privately owned business is a public space? you can enter cause they let you. it is not that they cant serve someone under 21, no one can. which beautifully illustrates my point about how this legislation is meaningless and punitive. you want to stop this dire health problem, ban the sale of tobacco. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 345 Registered: 6-2001 |
Like I said, taking it out of the public domain is a GREAT first step! And NJ is ALMOST THERE!!!!! WOOHOO!!!! | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4626 Registered: 9-2001 |
...and some people tell me I'm tenacious on line, the Libertarian has me beat by a long shot! | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1126 Registered: 3-2004 |
For now, we can focus on the health risks of people who don't want exposure. how about letting people choose for themselves. for example, dont go into a bar where they allow smoking? | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 346 Registered: 6-2001 |
Easy - because tobacco products kill about 1,200 people in the US every single day. And we shouldn't call it smoking - it should be called nicotine adddiction. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1127 Registered: 3-2004 |
you dodged the question with rhetoric | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 347 Registered: 6-2001 |
When carcinogens are involved - there shouldn't be a choice. Please answer this question: List more Group A carcinogens that are allowed in indoor public places? |
