You know whats nice ?

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

it depends how much of a value the law makers place on human life. . . . .We are all paying for that Tobacco revenue. Healthcare costs in this country are cippling this country's fiscal future and cigarette smoking and unhealthy diets are MAJOR factors in the most out of shape and banged up generation of Americans this nation has seen in a who knows how long.

_________________________
Following this argument to its logical extension then. . . .we should put limits on horspower on cars so they won't drive so fast, people will kill themselves driving fast. .. . .young people shouldnt drive until they're 25 since the risk of accidents at that age substantially decreases prompting isurance carriers to lowering their costs to insuring vehicles and drivers.

ditto with speedlimts. 70 mph is safe but 55 mph is safer. .. . but 20 mph is even safer!! It would save fuel too, and we'd be less oil dependent, so there's a triple benefit. While we're at it, all lights across the country should be turned off at 11pm, because it's not "safe" for you since you can't be up to any good after that hour and you're more likely to be caught for drinking and driving after that hour..

oh yeah, since 20 mph is safest cars should be lined with titanium reinforced block cages. . . . becasue if you get in an accident at that low speed you'd be more likely to survive.

In europe they smoke EVERYWHERE, airports, bars, sections of hospitals, burgerkings, McDonalds, public arenas, public buildings, yet they live as long if not lslightly longer than americans. (They serve alcohol in BK and McD's as well, even in front of all those innocent children.)

They should ban drinking, since people WILL drink and drive (oh yeah, we already tried that), or maybe even ban drinking until one is 30 years old since that will reduce risk even more. . . or would it?

Houses should be built underground and of concrete in hurricane-prone areas, since they are "safest."

Twinkies, cupcakes, sweets, softdrinks should be banned as well because they make us fat, and if you're fat your more likely to get diabetes, heart disease, and die younger thus rasining healthcare costs, thus "crippling" the "fiscal" future of our economy, unless of course we have national healthcare like they do in Europe and canada where they smoke everywhere, where drinking ages are much lower and they have higher speed limits than here.

IMHO the antismoking drive has nothing to do with health only control and regulation.

Light em up.

[Perfectlap]

you know my folks have a place in Florida and I recently visited there and made a return trip to Disney World after a nearly 20 year abscence. I was old enough to remember my last visit there and the first thing that struck me was how many obese children I saw. It was disturbing. Fat knees and fat necks on chubby whiny faces. And their parents? were even worse. I wouldn't be surprised if the average American male has put on 20 pounds and the average female 15 pounds since the 80's. This nation has changed drastically in only 20 years.

Meanwhile exercise isn't even required in many schools. Did you see Supersize me? Great film.

Go ahead indulge in your personal freedoms and put away that three month supply of Ring Dings and Twinkies from Costco inside of a week! Then polish it off with a pack of Newport menthols and wash it down with 2 liters of mountain dew.

Like it or not when the goverment speaks Industry responds. Like over here in NYC, the bizzare Mayor Bloomberg decided to take on trans fats making them a public health issue. Now fast food chains across the country are starting to think about cutting this crap out of their food nationwide FOR FEAR OF LITIGATION?!
How about fear of profiting from the "chunking up" of America? These Corporations don't care.
Unfortunately we have become a sleep walking nation stuffing our faces with cigarettes, Bourbon, and Taco Bell.

See unlike driving at high speeds, no amount of cigarette smoking is safe. Not for the consumer or the sorry sap that has suck up the second hand smoke.

" How can I prevent laryngeal cancer?
Smoking is by far the strongest risk factor associated with the development of laryngeal cancer. Since it is fairly uncommon for a non-smoker to be diagnosed with laryngeal cancer, smoking cessation is the best way to prevent laryngeal cancer. In fact, not using tobacco of any kind, by either smoking or smokeless, is the healthiest thing anyone can do, both in terms of preventing laryngeal cancer, as well as the prevention of other throat cancers, lung cancers, and many other serious health problems.-www.oncolink.com

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

See unlike driving at high speeds, no amount of cigarette smoking is safe. Not for the consumer or the sorry sap that has suck up the second hand smoke.

________________________________
1. Unless of course you crash at high speed and kill, cripple, or injure yourself, a passenger, pedestrian or another motorist, then it's just as deadly as a smoke except you've injected innocent bystanders into the equation.

2. Ponder this: do you think all the pollution from all exhausts is a lot more deadly to the entire world population that all cigarette smoke inhaled by primary and secondary smokers? If so, then shouldn't we try to ban oil completely? Are we already trying to do that?

[z12358]

Originally Posted by jeffsquire

_________________________
Following this argument to its logical extension then. . . .


IMHO the antismoking drive has nothing to do with health only control and regulation.

Light em up.

As a lawyer, you must've heard of a "straw man" argument, I'm sure. Here's where the straw man leads you: Preventing people from randomly shooting others point blank must only be about control and regulation.

On the contrary, antismoking has nothing to do with control and regulation and everything to do with: Your freedom is only restricted by the freedom you take away from others.

My freedom NOT to be exposed to someone's exhaled smoke (which btw has been proven to be dangerous to my health and wellbeing) should prevail over his freedom to smoke wherever he likes. As I said previously, we don't even need to prove that the smoker's disregard for his own health affects me through the increased health care costs. He directly affects me with the smoke that he blows into my lungs, and that's enough. Just as shooting randomly on the street is "controled and regulated", so should be smoking. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they didn't ban smoking but they regulated obligatory glass jars on top of smokers heads. That way they get to "enjoy" the full product of their cigs (no waste), and the public doesn't get affected. Win - win for all.

Z.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by z12358

...I wouldn't mind if they didn't ban smoking but they regulated obligatory glass jars on top of smokers heads. That way they get to "enjoy" the full product of their cigs (no waste), and the public doesn't get affected. Win - win for all.

Z.

how many smokers do you think would sign up for one them jars?

p.s.
JS, we should have switched to electric cars 20 years ago. I talked to my driver the other night on the way to the airport and asked him how long he was driving. He said 15 years. I asked him how many times a day a he had more than one passenger in his Town Car. He said zero. If that's not a candidate for a hybrid I don't know what is. As it is emissions standards on autos are very high relative to the rest of the world. At moment emissions standards on smokers are non-existent. Maybe we can fab up a nice low emissions jar to go on top of that smokers head?
p.s.s.
My current siginificant other is the first NOT to smoke. Thank god...

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by z12358

As a lawyer, you must've heard of a "straw man" argument, I'm sure. Here's where the straw man leads you: Preventing people from randomly shooting others point blank must only be about control and regulation.
On the contrary, antismoking has nothing to do with control and regulation and everything to do with: Your freedom is only restricted by the freedom you take away from others. .

_____________________________
You mean the freedom you take from those who choose to smoke in public places against those nonsmokers who choose to voluntarily attend those same public places? Sounds like a strawman argument to me.

My advice is to avoid patronage of smoke-freindly restaruants and establishments. There are plenty of them out there. ANd while you're there, quaff some CocaCola, imbibe bourbon, gorge cake, wallow in fried food and loosen your belt as it rubs against the table, but enjoy yourself.

[z12358]

Originally Posted by jeffsquire

_____________________________
You mean the freedom you take from those who choose to smoke in public places against those nonsmokers who choose to voluntarily attend those same public places? Sounds like a strawman argument to me.

My advice is to avoid patronage of smoke-freindly restaruants and establishments. There are plenty of them out there. ANd while you're there, quaff some CocaCola, imbibe bourbon, gorge cake, wallow in fried food and loosen your belt as it rubs against the table, but enjoy yourself.

You seem to have missed the class about why laws, rules, and regulations are neccessary in a society of two or more free individuals. Or forget the roots of law -- Ever heard of the 'golden rule'?

So your proposed solution to every free individual in a free society is: If something (bullet, baseball bat, bomb, noise, spit, smoke, etc.) is about to negatively affect you in a public space, shut your mouth and just stay away, lest you (god forbid!) limit the freedom of the ones who are causing it!?

Z.

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by z12358

So your proposed solution to every free individual in a free society is: If something (bullet, baseball bat, bomb, noise, spit, smoke, etc.) is about to negatively affect you in a public space, shut your mouth and just stay away, lest you (god forbid!) limit the freedom of the ones who are causing it!Z.

_______________________________________________

Talk about the ultimate straw man argument . . . . . comparing chosing to smoke in a public place and equating it to exploding bombs and shooting guns in public places. Right . . . .

[z12358]

Originally Posted by jeffsquire

_______________________________________________

Talk about the ultimate straw man argument . . . . . comparing chosing to smoke in a public place and equating it to exploding bombs and shooting guns in public places. Right . . . .

You keep refering to the 'strawman argument' and, in my opinion, don't really understand it. The list in the brackets was not there for comparison, but for analogy. Regardless, you could have just disregarded the bracketed text and addressed my statement on its own merits, but chose not to do so. And that's fine, too. It's a free country.

Z.

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by z12358

You keep refering to the 'strawman argument' and, in my opinion, don't really understand it. The list in the brackets was not there for comparison, but for analogy. Regardless, you could have just disregarded the bracketed text and addressed my statement on its own merits, but chose not to do so. And that's fine, too. It's a free country. :Z.

_________________________

I'm completely familiar with the strawman argument as it is used against me and I use it (along with a variety of other thigns) in court every week. I stand by my response to your entire paragraph including my comment of the strawman. That was my answer.

But you're right. I didnt address this:

You seem to have missed the class about why laws, rules, and regulations are neccessary in a society of two or more free individuals. Or forget the roots of law -- Ever heard of the 'golden rule'?

Regulations are always necessary and you've never heard me advocate for anarchy. The golden rule is is traditionally defined as treat others as you would want to be treated. With that being said, regarding antismoking laws, I would not like to be treated the way smokers are today. Thus I defend them and treat them as I would want to be treated.