Send a Message
to Psy - Michael Crawford

Comments

820

Joined

Feb 14, 2009

Psy - Michael Crawford Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

claps*  (Mar 28, 2009 | post #490)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

Maybe so... but you have to respect other people's choices as well. Your personal *convenience* does not override other people's property rights (and this includes the owners of establishments). I realize that practically, it makes finding a bar much more difficult, but if there are enough of you out there and you organize, you can make change without resorting to government coercionAnd whose fault was that? ...and because of that silence you decide to resort to the governmentBut making a scene is sometimes necessary. You could also tell the manager you were leaving because it was too smoky... not making a scene but letting the manager know why you wouldn't be coming back. Smokers are a minority. If non-smokers who were truly bothered were to speak up and vote with their wallets (rather that petition the government), perhaps things would change quicker. You could also ask a person politely if they could stop smoking or inform them that you're really really bothered by it. (i.e. not putting shirt over your mouth and nose, holding your nose, coughing obnoxiously, or any other related actions...) Where there is sufficient demand, there is supply. If there is sufficient demand for non-smoking, it provides a business opportunity for others to take advantage of. Personally, if I were a business owner I would take advantage of it and start a non-smoking bar (advertised widely as such). It would have a steady stream of customers who don't like smoke. Again... a situation where people vote with their walletsAnd there are stories where the reverse is true. It depends on the situation. The best solution is not to have the government interfere, but to let private enterprise provide different environments for different markets (smoking and non smoking). That way everybody wins. What's wrong with thatBut I fully realize that. I don't smoke in other people's homes unless they tell me I can smoke inside (i don't ask, and I certainly don't just light up). In enclosed places where smoking is normally allowed, I *ask* before I light up becuase I realize non smokers don't like it and I want to be polite. The problem I have is when a bunch of smokers who want to have a place they can drink and smoke are suddenly prohibited from doing so (on private property too.).  (Mar 27, 2009 | post #459)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

Totally agree.  (Mar 27, 2009 | post #458)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

No. Prohibitionists, who wear many guises. You, for instance. You claim to only be concerned with people poisoning others without their consent but ignore the fact that people enter smoking establishments with full knowledge and consent. In a sense, they agree to inhale second hand smoke the moment they enter the door. It's the ignoring of that fact that makes me think that those such as yourself would like to eliminate tobacco / drug consumption entirely (under the justification that it would be good for public health as a whole). While that may be true, as far as i'm concerned public health is measured in more than just body. There is also health of liberty in a society, and when that is sacrificed, you might as well be dead. It's what our forefathers faught for. Give me liberty... The right for people to do what they want on their own property, or run establishments catoring to certain behaviors is a liberty that is enshrined in the consitution. Please don't take that for granted. While you might have good intentions, once you start down the "ends justify the means / greater good" path, it's a slippery slope down to totalitarian government.  (Mar 27, 2009 | post #455)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

Does that mean court mandated to a religious organization (AA)? I do agree that drugs should be legalized. I just disagree that forced treatment (of any kind) should be an alternative. Something that modifies the mind should *always* be optional... otherwise it's government mandated re-education (often religious too!). There is also the practical aspect that forced treatment does not work. A study done on forced participation in AA for drunk drivers showed that the AA participants (as opposed to the control group with no treatment) actually had a higher likelyhood of relapse and 5 times higher instances of binge drinking (Jeffery Brandsma, et al.). Personally, I think if somebody endangers somebody else by driving in a reduced capacity (blindfolded or drunk... does not matter), they should be charged with reckless endangerment and sent to jail. Treatment should not be an option. It gives people an easy way out... but that's off topic...  (Mar 27, 2009 | post #453)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

Well there is another touchy subject. I'm wary of *some* who promote legalization under this justification as some tend to support forced treatment. How about you? Do you support treating people against their will?  (Mar 27, 2009 | post #450)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

Somebody on the site I administer wrote this: "Sorry! I don't have a death wish, and that is why I don't smoke tobacco. If you smoke cigarettes you are either suicidal, or ignorant to a lethal degree. By the way, I need to know from any smokers. Why do you want to die 30 years early, in a very painful and expensive way that burdens everybody around you? If you want to kill yourself, why not just go jump off a bridge and be done with it? I just don't get it, they should be made illegal. It's too easy for corporations to exploit and profit off of the weak willed." Typical... http://www.fornits .com/phpbb/viewtop ic.php?f=22&t= 27212&p=328820 #p328820  (Mar 27, 2009 | post #449)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

Here is another group that sucessfully seceded: http://www.conchre public.com/welcome .htm They were almost invaded, too, but the US acknowledged soverignty: http://www.conchre public.com/invade9 5.htm How was it all done? humor.  (Mar 26, 2009 | post #388)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

Also: http://www.republi cofnh.org/  (Mar 26, 2009 | post #385)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

I agree. Or at least a secession to a separate nation where free thinkers can live based on the principles outlined in the Constitution.  (Mar 26, 2009 | post #360)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

I suspect hacked and sunny are just trolling. Nobody could be this blind. It's like certain concepts just aren't computing.  (Mar 26, 2009 | post #351)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

The guy who said "when facism comes to america.. it will come in a white coat and a stethescope". .. he's paraphrasing CS Lewis, who wrote: "The new Nero will approach us with the silky manners of a doctor" http://www.angelfi re.com/pro/lewiscs /humanitarian.html Interesting essay. I don't agree with all of it, but he makes some interesting points.  (Mar 26, 2009 | post #340)

WISH-TV 8 Indiana News

Smoking debate divides local residents

What about the loud music example. It's your right to choose to visit a club with loud music (potentially damaging to hearing). It's not your right to tell them to turn it down. Same situation here withe the smoking. It's your right to choose to visit a bar with smoking (potentially damaging to lungs). It's not your right to tell them to stop smoking. Go to a club with softer music. Go to a non-smoking bar. It's your choice. What you don't get to do is step on the rights of people who enjoy loud music or smoking.  (Mar 26, 2009 | post #321)