Stop Smoking Now!!!

[greg334]

I'm sorry but as Greg has said several times, this is funny, or was it sad?

You are arguing someones personal habit, vice, need, desire whatever, as though they are rights. No-where is polluting air a right.
In a true democracy, everyone has the same rights as decreed by the majority.
If you happen to be in the minority in voting you will be afforded the same rights as the those who voted in the majority.

Nope you got it wrong, I am saying that the rights of people to do what they want to in their homes, cars and businesses is key to all the rights. I'm also saying that if we have a true democracy, this country is doomed. We don't and should never have it. The people who think we do better look at what is going on in the democrat party, better look at what is happening in my state Michigan and better realize that some of those rights are not equally applied. If you think so look at how speech is regulated, you can't make a remark without harming someone's civil rights.

Mike I am sorry, it is a sore point with me to that the same logic isn't applied to all issues.

 

[dabluzman1]

No, you got it wrong in as much the only part of the quote that applied to you was the "this is funny or was it sad?"

The rest went straight to Turtle.
As for your logic that isnt applied to all topics.
What makes your point of view logical?
Your cool calm demeanor?
Citing of Supreme Court cases?
Not everyone will share your approach to issues.
And they dont have to.
Checks and balances.
The different branches of government assure different points of view to help
safeguard the constitution.
You are a chicken little, most of what you shout about is trivial and contrived, in my opinion.
But, if those are the important matters in your life, I applaud you for taking a stance.

 

[Turtle]

First of all, there are no checks and balances in a democracy. You are nor afforded the same rights in the minority as the majority voted for, unless the majority says so. Not in a democracy. If the majority votes to remove any and all rights of the minority, then that's the way it is, and the minority can do nothing about it. That's fine if you're always in the majority, cause you always get your way, but what happens if there's an issue that comes up where you are in the minority? Opps, sorry, you don't get a say in the matter, because the majority (back when you were a member of it) already removed your rights to do that.

 

[dabluzman1]

Man you keep my rolling Turtle.

Get a grip on reality.

Has it always been all or nothing with you.

If you vote Democrat and the Republican wins, I guess you are SOL until four years
rolls around and maybe your candidate gets in.

You just dont get it do you.

You are afforded the same rights as the majority.
Now you may be sulking because your personal preferred right was defeated,
I can see that, but good god man, you have the same rights that the majority won.

Checks and balances.......i wont even............. I cant stop laughing

I cant go on, my sides are splitting..........you win............

I am minority man, I am at your mercy

 

[Turtle]

Wow. Ignorance really is bliss. You're confusing a Democratic government with a democracy. We, here in the United States, live under a democratically elected representative republic form of government, not a democracy. There's a huge difference, and I strongly suggest you learn the difference between the two.


You state that if I vote for a Democrat and a Republican wins that I'm SOL until perhaps four years later and my candidate gets in. Well, because of the checks and balances of our Representative Republic (it's not a democracy), I'm really not SOL, as there's only just so much damage a particular president can do. But, in a true democracy, that you have flatly stated you prefer (the minority abiding by the wishes of the majority, i.e., the minority bending to the will of the majority), the majority can do whatever they want, including taking away the rights of the minority.

For example, the majority of the people do not own businesses, but as a majority they have gotten together and forced their will on the minority of business owners. A business owner should be able to run his business any way he sees fit, and that includes polluting his own air, if he wishes. But the majority has said no, he can't do that, and that doesn't in any way, shape or form afford the business owner the same rights as the majority. The majority gave themselves the right to tell the minority what to do, but the minority does not have the same right.

The issue in Ohio, for example, is sooooo not about smoking, tho many non-smokers who want to feel superior and want to be able to tell others what to do think it is. It's a slippery slope is what it is. Ohio Common Pleas Court judge Fred Nelson recently ruled that the law was absolutely constitutional (because, duh, the Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to smoke in public), but he added in his decision that a law such as this one may be "ill-advised, paternalistic and generally obnoxious," and still be constitutional. But what the law does is, it gives the government a foot inside the door in the regulation of private property, of regulating, and even removing, the rights of property owners. It's telling private property owners what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own private property. A privately owned restaurant is not a public place. It's a small step from there to telling people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. There is no difference.

So you keep on laughing your blissfully ignorant laugh, and we'll see who laughs last.

 

[dabluzman1]

I hope your shorts arent all twisted because of me.

Let me help you here.

It is representative democracy that we have in the us.

Dont take my word, really, I dont want any part of you twisting my words.

I never mention democracy as my preference, i did tout majority rule.

Keep it straight, pluuuuhleeez.

You want to understand more about a democracy, a republic and lets throw in federalism
here is some light reading for you:

democracy and its critiques robert dahl

the federalist papers james madison

considerations on representative government john mill stuart

models of democracy david held

capitalism, socialism and democracy joseph a schumpter

please read to enrich your mind.

 

[RLENT]

You are arguing someones personal habit, vice, need, desire whatever, as though they are rights.

In the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, the founders of this country stated their beliefs in some fundamental truths ... one of these was that individuals "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness .....

It is, to a great degree, the basic foundation upon which the creation of our country rests.

One would be well advised to note the use of the word "inalienable" in the above sentence. Inalienable means that these rights cannot be separated or transferred from the individual - they are inherent.

Have we as a people fallen so far that we now believe that the activities that our rights and freedoms allow must be spelled out in excruciating details to the Nth degree ? It's almost like those that believe that passing a law is the solution for just about any ill that society suffers. A law is a symptom of a problem, but rarely the solution to it.

Got a clue for ya: More laws = less freedom.

The right to pursue happiness is my inalienable right. If I choose to do that by smoking then that is my right.

No-where is polluting air a right.

No - it isn't enumerated as a specific right - but you obviously drive a vehicle don't you ? Participate in the burning fossil fuels to heat and light your home ?

So you pollute the air. So is your pollution more sacred, more holy than a smokers ? Why do you do these things if you have no right to ? Particularly since they could cause harm to your fellows ?

You certainly wouldn't argue that a settler in the 1800's had no right to start a campfire - so that he wouldn't freeze to death would you ? Or that you don't have a right to heat your home and keep from freezing ?

In a true democracy, everyone has the same rights as decreed by the majority.

Sheesh ..... then I say good thing we don't live in a "true democracy" ...... mob rule ... just never was a big fan of it ....

If you happen to be in the minority in voting you will be afforded the same rights as the those who voted in the majority.

Me thinks someone has never heard of the "tyranny of the majority" (somewhat surprising since you claim to be a fan of John Stuart Mill ...)

Try reading Federalist Papers, particularly No. 10. Look for the phrase "the violence of majority faction" - same thing.

Or "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Toquville (1835)

Or "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill (1859):

"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"

According to Mill, there is only one legitimate reason for the exercise of power over individuals:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The problem with the law you support is that while couched and promoted in terms of "saving" some from "harm" (ostensibly from others), it actually outlaws and criminalizes an inherently non-criminal behavior (smoking), the right of individuals to freely associate (going to place where individuals of a like mind might gather, and do things which they desire to do) - and the right of a property owner to do with his property as he sees fit.

It is easy enough for the "victim" to take themselves out of harms way. I guess if they don't then they are simply choosing to be a "victim" .... apparently a popular fad these days.

Another problem with the concept you stated above is that you give the power to the majority to criminalize any behavior - simply because they say it is so. Well, so much for the concept of inalienable rights .....

Woe to you who are of an unpopular belief, a different religion .... of bad vices and habits (at least according to some) .... as the Turtle says ... the nose-pickers and the butt scratchers .....

Apparently some of your neighbors believe you lack fundamental inalienable rights and would have power over you, your vices and habits - keep a close eye on these folks - for they are not the ones that would fight for your rights, your freedoms - they would eliminate them in order to "help" you or "save" something. The real pity is that they would do away with or reduce one of the most priceless things that there is for man .... his freedom.

Grow up.
Ya cant always get what ya want.
You adapt, move on, get a dog, whatever.
Too bad you backed a loser.
The concepts are pure and clear.
better luck next time on the issues.

It is precisely the attitude conveyed by the words above ("tough luck pal - get over it") why we should guard against the tranny of a majority - because it shows a lack of respect for the right of an individual to his own liberty, his own happiness, and to his own property.

Look I understand you are (apparently) passionate about not smoking - or even being around it. I don't have any problem with that - that's your right. It's one that I can fully understand.

Just don't try to enforce your desires and preferences on some business owner and try to tell him what to do with his property. If he wants to allow smoking - patronize another business that doesn't - you have that right - and the freedom to do so.

But you (and others) have taken away my same right - one that you already had - the ability to patronize a business that caters to my preference (say, allows smoking) - and have now criminalized that behavior.

I dont get everything I want or fight for.

And for that we are, of course, thankful.

.....have them see my point of view as the legitimate point of view.

True freedom for all will only possible when one can conceive that other points of view might well be just as legitimate as one's own. And when one rises to the level of having some small degree of consideration for one's fellows.

Your viewpoint (of not choosing to smoke or wanting to be around it) is legitimate. Your viewpoint to take away mine and others freedoms however is not.

FWIW, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a smoker. However, I generally always ask for the non-smoking section in a restaurant if I am with others (and usually even if I am not) .... and I don't smoke under others' noses - or in other peoples cars or homes (unless they are smokers who also do so themselves) - or unless it is a non-smoking friend that I know doesn't give a rat's azz (there are still a few out there .... despite the ever-growing population of nico-nazi's)

It's just a matter of being considerate of others.

 

[davekc]

Regardless of what side of the fence your on with this issue, I am surprised at the amount of posts it has garnished.
With everything going on in the world and our industry, is this really a priority?
It may or may not be to some, but I really would have to think by comparison, that this is so far off the radar screen that it barely appears?
Just my penny in the pond

 

[dabluzman1]

Regardless of what side of the fence your on with this issue, I am surprised at the amount of posts it has garnished.
With everything going on in the world and our industry, is this really a priority?
It may or may not be to some, but I really would have to think by comparison, that this is so far off the radar screen that it barely appears?
Just my penny in the pond

awww, c'mon dad, just a little more, this really good stuff!!!

besides, we were just havin fun......

 

[Turtle]

Just to add what RLENT so eloquently wrote...

Actually, Dave, that's the problem, it's not dead center on everybody's radar screen, because it either doesn't affect them immediately and directly, or they only see it from one singular, self-serving perspective. This is just one more step down that slippery slope where liberties start to slide away. And it will just get worse. Always does.

I never mention democracy as my preference, i did tout majority rule.

OMG. It's like trying to have a conversation with a valve stem cover.


"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

"Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at other times. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society."

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[miguy1957]

awww, c'mon dad, just a little more, this really good stuff!!!

besides, we were just havin fun......

Regardless of what side of the fence your on with this issue, I am surprised at the amount of posts it has garnished.
With everything going on in the world and our industry, is this really a priority?
It may or may not be to some, but I really would have to think by comparison, that this is so far off the radar screen that it barely appears?
Just my penny in the pond

NO disrespect, but when a topic comes up that people feel strongly about, I think they jump on it because they are tired of talking about high fuel prices, crappy loads , lack of load offers, to many trucks, breakdowns ,fuel mileage etc. Gives us something else to do besides looking out the windshield, wondering why we are doing this instead of having a proper job and being home everynight...........Just a thought.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

 

[dabluzman1]

why do insist on adding meanings to my words.
your interpretations on my beliefs are .... well lacking.

Turtle, try and get this.

By law i am given rights. i expect those rights to be honored.
at this moment in time one of rights is to go places in Ohio and not be subjected to
smokers.

Please, let this soak in, if the law was reversed to allow smoking in public places in ohio,
as it was for decades before, i would honor your right to smoke and argue the legitimacy
of that right.

all this stuff you bring up about democracy didnt come from mouth. you and greg brought it up.
i even asked greg why he said it.
democracy, socialism,communism,representative democracy, those words, to me are just some topics i read about in college. nothing to get in an uproar about.

your fight aint with me. as i said i didnt vote against the smokers. either way was fine with me. but what it is, is what it is right now.
i expect you to be a man and honor my rights.

peace

 

[Turtle]

why do insist on adding meanings to my words.

Somebody has to.

your interpretations on my beliefs are .... well lacking.

Then express yourself in a way that leaves them not open to improper interpretation.

Turtle, try and get this.

By law i am given rights. i expect those rights to be honored.
at this moment in time one of rights is to go places in Ohio and not be subjected to
smokers.

Try and get this.
Rights are inalienable, they are not given by law. Laws either spell out those rights so that those who cannot understand their inalienable rights can comprehend them, or the laws restrict or remove the rights of others. All laws do this, without exception. In the case of Ohio, the perceived right you think you were granted was already there, except the law now restricts the private property owner and grants you power over him to tell him what he can and cannot do on his own property.

democracy, socialism,communism,representative democracy, those words, to me are just some topics i read about in college. nothing to get in an uproar about.

And there ya go.

i expect you to be a man and honor my rights.

Your rights? Rights? Oh, yeah, rights. I remember. That's just some topic I read about in college. Nothing to get in an uproar about.

You should go back up and re-read those quotes from Jefferson very, very carefully.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

So now by decree...a non smoker has more rights then I do?

A non smoker could walk away from a situation they didn't like

I no longer have that decision to make The LAW took that option away from me so to me thats a RIGHT DENIED....

You by law now have more rights hen me....where's the equality I was promised in this act?

All men are equal under the law?

You had an option to leave a smokey room

I no longer have an option to find a smokey room...The Law took that away...

 

[greg334]

No OVM, read it carefully, there is a serious point to be made here and a perfect illustration of what really is wrong with the country.

For the record, there are no rights promised or granted. The constitution is there not to define, grant or anything otherwise affect the rights of the person or citizen. The sole purpose of the constitution is to ensure that the rights of the government is defined and defines the purpose and how it is to fulfill its purpose.

In addition Turtle, the Ohio decision is a state constitution ruling, not a federal ruling.

Oh looky there, I see names mentioned I know.

Mentioned is “Democracy and its Critiques” by Robert Dahl. Dahl is rather looking at things still based on his ’60’s book “Who Governs?” and “A Preface to Democratic Theory” where he coins the term Polyarchy and claims the US is that form of government – the only problem is using his term with his definition, he illustrates that the are serious deficiency in the political structure of the US government, namely the right to vote, which is wrong – there is no right to vote. His work furthers the work of Wilson and other writer of the late 19th century by the way.

Considerations on representative government” by John Stuart – good one but you missed “Centralisation”, “The Principles of political economy” and “On Liberty”

”Models of democracy” by David Held - well the problem with Held, he is British and they view rights differently. Just like Stuart, they view political systems differently and I will comment on the brits later. His “Democracy and the Global Order” and the whole Cosmopolitanism theories he set forward are a slanted copy of Marx and some what of Lenin, with the global citizen and all that.

Capitalism, socialism and democracy” by Joseph Schumpeter – ah Schumpeter, I think he was the one who pointed out that accepted definition of democracy is bad in which the people tended to be manipulated by the politicians through the ignorance of the people under the auspices for the common good, where have I heard that before? His other stuff, “Social Classes in an Ethnically Homogeneous Environment” and “March into Socialism” can also be used to further enlighten one’s mind.

I recommend “Congressional Government” and “New Freedom” by Woodrow Wilson as a perfect illustration of what has happened to the country in the last 100 or so years.

As for the brits, they view liberty differently. From the late 17 century to the late ’60s they didn’t have the same rights as we do. Our founding fathers didn’t want to be faced with the same issues that the British SUBJECTS was faced with and made it a point to move away from that form of Government. In Britian, especially in the 20s to the late 40’s the average subject wasn’t afforded due process rights which were changed to what they have today. There were also a lot of restrictions on speech and the press. One BBC commentator said about a possibility of Shria law coming to GB, “what’s the difference, I grew up in an environment where we were controlled down to what we could think”.

What I mentioned as suggested reading, Wilson made a point that their system was a far better system and the constitution with Checks and Balances is a hindrance to governing the people. If you don’t believe me read those two pieces, because it spells what he and FDR and others thought about our system of government. It is utterly amazing that we elected him in the first place because he and carter were two of the most anti-American presidents we ever had, but again Schumpeter is right, ignorance allows this to happen.

 

[dabluzman1]

Somebody has to.

Then express yourself in a way that leaves them not open to improper interpretation.

Try and get this.
Rights are inalienable, they are not given by law. Laws either spell out those rights so that those who cannot understand their inalienable rights can comprehend them, or the laws restrict or remove the rights of others. All laws do this, without exception. In the case of Ohio, the perceived right you think you were granted was already there, except the law now restricts the private property owner and grants you power over him to tell him what he can and cannot do on his own property.

And there ya go.

Your rights? Rights? Oh, yeah, rights. I remember. That's just some topic I read about in college. Nothing to get in an uproar about.

You should go back up and re-read those quotes from Jefferson very, very carefully.

ditto my friend ditto.
for what you are so hard not trying to afford me, you sure want me to afford it to you.

quote by ontariovanman

"So now by decree...a non smoker has more rights then I do?

A non smoker could walk away from a situation they didn't like

I no longer have that decision to make The LAW took that option away from me so to me thats a RIGHT DENIED....

You by law now have more rights hen me....where's the equality I was promised in this act?

All men are equal under the law?

You had an option to leave a smokey room

I no longer have an option to find a smokey room...The Law took that away..." "

end of quote.

yes unfortunate as it is, that is now the case.

I am 56 years old, and since i have been able to go out on dates with friends, around 14,
I have been subjected to smokers rights.
I didnt cry or whine .
if my girl had asthma or didnt like smoke we would not join our friends in the establishment. kinda of sucked, but we found other things to do.

now for two years, in ohio, all i have heard is the whine of smokers being faced for the
first time in their lives what i was subjected to for over 56 years.
too bad.
i will not move away from my statements of my rights needing to be honored.
everything else being thrown at me is just, pardon the pun, blowning smoke, so you
dont have to admit my rights are valid and unfair as it is to you, they have to be honored.
grow up.
fight for reform, you might win back those lost rights, dont whine to me about it.

Greg,
good points, lucid and clear.
i enjoy your info when presented as fact.
also i knew youd get a kick out of my reference material, i believe you
have mentioned some of them in past posts.

 

[dabluzman1]

to all who engaged in this discussion, thankyou, i enjoyed it.

while we may not agree on things, we are indeed blessed to be able to openly debate
them in our society.

difference of opinions often lead to understanding., sometimes hatred, i dont hate any of you
and i hope you can believe me when i say, i understand your point of view.

Linda and I are leaving on a job that will keep me off the net for 10 to 15 hours.
i will not have an interest in approaching this topic at that time, as i think we have stated our sides rather well.

but again i thank all for the spirited debate.

hopefully, in the future we can meet in person to really see the true type of ogres
( laughingly he says this ) each of are and have a cup of joe and enjoy this and other matters along with each other.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

If we ever do meet up for a cuppa "JOE" hope it's my home state...at least I can puff away with the coffee..

 

[copdsux]

I bring to your attention the original idea, behind this post: "Stop smoking now"! I'm still sitting on the edge of a hospital, wondering if I'll ever work again. I see this as a health issue, not a rights issue. It would seem easy enough to agree that if a particular activity was going to kill you, or me, we should stop that behavior.

Maybe those of you that adamantly state that it is more your right to smoke, than mine to breathe clean air, I say: When it is you, or a family member, with COPD, remember this thread.

 

[CharlesD]

I bring to your attention the original idea, behind this post: "Stop smoking now"! I'm still sitting on the edge of a hospital, wondering if I'll ever work again. I see this as a health issue, not a rights issue. It would seem easy enough to agree that if a particular activity was going to kill you, or me, we should stop that behavior.

Maybe those of you that adamantly state that it is more your right to smoke, than mine to breathe clean air, I say: When it is you, or a family member, with COPD, remember this thread.

It kind of burns me too that your thread went in a direction that you didn't intend. For the record, I don't smoke and never did. I grew up with parents who smoked in the house and by the time I got out on my own I couldn't stand the smell of it. I don't think the point of this discussion is who has what rights. Regardless of what the rights are or who grants them, this discussion is about whether or not engaging in a behavior that you may have every right to do is really something that you ought to be doing. This is about somebody who is paying a price for that behavior trying to warn others. I applaud you for that. I might not smoke, but that doesn't mean that I don't need to look at what I eat or how much I eat. We all have the right to smoke and eat at the truck stop buffet every day, but having the right doesn't mean we should be doing those things.