Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Nanny State

Page 3 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

30 Aug 2010, 8:56 am

Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Anything that discourages smoking is a worthwhile effort. Smoking is a very nasty business and when you have seen people dying of lung cancer and going into helpless coughing fits to satisfy a predatory industry it becomes obvious that it should be eventually stopped.


It's not the business of the state to suppress legitimate businesses and impose on people's right to partake in potentially harmful activities.


Remember that when you have been involved in a head on collision with some idiot texting on his mobile phone while driving.

If you still can.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

30 Aug 2010, 4:11 pm

So I assume Sand and BigK support prohibition and the the drug war. Whatever discourages bad behavior right?



JasonGone
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 124

30 Aug 2010, 4:17 pm

when they came for the smokers i said nothing, as i wasn't a smoker...


_________________
"humans make for piss poor people."


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2010, 7:31 pm

Jacoby wrote:
So I assume Sand and BigK support prohibition and the the drug war. Whatever discourages bad behavior right?


The assumption that approval of one government action implies approval of all government actions signifies really bad thinking.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Aug 2010, 7:32 pm

JasonGone wrote:
when they came for the smokers i said nothing, as i wasn't a smoker...


QFT

That quote sums up my thoughts on this subject exactly.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2010, 8:16 pm

Dox47 wrote:
JasonGone wrote:
when they came for the smokers i said nothing, as i wasn't a smoker...


QFT

That quote sums up my thoughts on this subject exactly.


Then they came for the child pornographers, the rapists, the bank robbers, the wife beaters, the Wall Street swindlers and I became rather uneasy.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Aug 2010, 10:15 pm

Sand wrote:
Then they came for the child pornographers, the rapists, the bank robbers, the wife beaters, the Wall Street swindlers and I became rather uneasy.


You equate smokers with rapists, bank robbers and child pornographers?

Forgive me for concluding that a rational discussion on smoking is not possible with you.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2010, 10:49 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Then they came for the child pornographers, the rapists, the bank robbers, the wife beaters, the Wall Street swindlers and I became rather uneasy.


You equate smokers with rapists, bank robbers and child pornographers?

Forgive me for concluding that a rational discussion on smoking is not possible with you.


It is merely the exaggerated response to the incredibly stupid assumption that all government regulation is intolerable. The role of government is to provide an environment for useful and safe and creative social activity. That some government regulation is badly conceived and executed is obvious but that does not indicate the government as such is dispensable. Each regulation must be closely examined for motivation and effect. Some are intolerable, some are necessary and some are incredibly stupid and ineffective. There is no way to either accept or reject the concept as a whole and have a rational and useful government.

There is no question that smoking is harmful to both the individual and to others in its presence. This is a scientifically and medically proven fact. For an industry to be based on the destruction of the health of millions of people strikes me as not only criminal but a severe burden in terms of finance and human suffering to the human community as a whole and it is an indulgence that deserves to be stopped. If nothing else, the severely stressed health system cannot afford it.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

30 Aug 2010, 10:55 pm

Where does that stop tho? Do you feel the same about alcohol or unhealthy food?



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

30 Aug 2010, 11:04 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The thing with 2nd hand smoke is that for the most part it's just an annoyance to most people in my personal experience than actual health risk.(I'm not saying there isn't one) I always laugh in situations where I see that because it reminds of the scene in Zoolander when Ben Stiller tells his miner father "I think I got the black lung, pop" and does an exaggerated cough after one day in the mines. I don't think annoying people is violating their rights tho. Other things smell too, you can't force a person to wear deodorant can you?

I grew up with my dad smoking, and he still smokes like crazy—addicted. Cigarette smoke can and does cause quite unpleasant respiratory side-effects for me, so it's not just an annoyance. If I were at a restaurant and were seated near someone with horrible body odor, yes, I would complain. Cigarette smokers, though, often tend to feel immune to this kind of thing since they often interpret smoking to the great annoyance and ill health of those around them to be a matter of freedom and principle. I couldn't care less if someone wants to smoke in their own home if the smoke isn't going to go into the air ducts and affect connected apartment units, but if they feel like pulling it out where it impacts others, they can expect the anger of those around them.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2010, 11:04 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Where does that stop tho? Do you feel the same about alcohol or unhealthy food?


Anything that destroys people for profit deserves official analysis and regulation. I doubt even you would approve the sale of bacterially infected meat.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

31 Aug 2010, 12:54 am

NeantHumain wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The thing with 2nd hand smoke is that for the most part it's just an annoyance to most people in my personal experience than actual health risk.(I'm not saying there isn't one) I always laugh in situations where I see that because it reminds of the scene in Zoolander when Ben Stiller tells his miner father "I think I got the black lung, pop" and does an exaggerated cough after one day in the mines. I don't think annoying people is violating their rights tho. Other things smell too, you can't force a person to wear deodorant can you?

I grew up with my dad smoking, and he still smokes like crazy—addicted. Cigarette smoke can and does cause quite unpleasant respiratory side-effects for me, so it's not just an annoyance. If I were at a restaurant and were seated near someone with horrible body odor, yes, I would complain. Cigarette smokers, though, often tend to feel immune to this kind of thing since they often interpret smoking to the great annoyance and ill health of those around them to be a matter of freedom and principle. I couldn't care less if someone wants to smoke in their own home if the smoke isn't going to go into the air ducts and affect connected apartment units, but if they feel like pulling it out where it impacts others, they can expect the anger of those around them.
You have the right to complain or take your business elsewhere. There would certainly be restaurants and bars that would cater to nonsmokers.



BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

31 Aug 2010, 2:55 am

Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Then they came for the child pornographers, the rapists, the bank robbers, the wife beaters, the Wall Street swindlers and I became rather uneasy.


You equate smokers with rapists, bank robbers and child pornographers?

Forgive me for concluding that a rational discussion on smoking is not possible with you.


Would you agree that there should be a line and the argument is over where to draw it?

Or do you prefer total anarchy?


Smoking probably contributes to more deaths than all those criminals that you mention. ;)

The big issue is smoking in the work place. People are going to get fired if they refuse to work in the smoking room. Bars/restaurants are someone's work place.

Jacoby wrote:
So I assume Sand and BigK support prohibition and the the drug war. Whatever discourages bad behavior right?


Assume nothing. :twisted:

Now if a party can propose a complete alcohol ban and still get elected...


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


JasonGone
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 124

31 Aug 2010, 4:13 am

Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Then they came for the child pornographers, the rapists, the bank robbers, the wife beaters, the Wall Street swindlers and I became rather uneasy.


You equate smokers with rapists, bank robbers and child pornographers?

Forgive me for concluding that a rational discussion on smoking is not possible with you.


It is merely the exaggerated response to the incredibly stupid assumption that all government regulation is intolerable. The role of government is to provide an environment for useful and safe and creative social activity. That some government regulation is badly conceived and executed is obvious but that does not indicate the government as such is dispensable. Each regulation must be closely examined for motivation and effect. Some are intolerable, some are necessary and some are incredibly stupid and ineffective. There is no way to either accept or reject the concept as a whole and have a rational and useful government.

There is no question that smoking is harmful to both the individual and to others in its presence. This is a scientifically and medically proven fact. For an industry to be based on the destruction of the health of millions of people strikes me as not only criminal but a severe burden in terms of finance and human suffering to the human community as a whole and it is an indulgence that deserves to be stopped. If nothing else, the severely stressed health system cannot afford it.


you make very well thought out and articulate points. i just can't agree because it so often ignores choice.
choice is something i embrace fully and a person has a right to do whatever they want with themselves and their bodies as long as they are not harming the liberty (life, property, and freedom) of another it is cool. they just have to also accept the consequences of their choices. and just as i do not think a government has the right to protect me from myself i also do not expect society to take care of me for the choices i make.


_________________
"humans make for piss poor people."


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

31 Aug 2010, 4:44 am

JasonGone wrote:
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Then they came for the child pornographers, the rapists, the bank robbers, the wife beaters, the Wall Street swindlers and I became rather uneasy.


You equate smokers with rapists, bank robbers and child pornographers?

Forgive me for concluding that a rational discussion on smoking is not possible with you.


It is merely the exaggerated response to the incredibly stupid assumption that all government regulation is intolerable. The role of government is to provide an environment for useful and safe and creative social activity. That some government regulation is badly conceived and executed is obvious but that does not indicate the government as such is dispensable. Each regulation must be closely examined for motivation and effect. Some are intolerable, some are necessary and some are incredibly stupid and ineffective. There is no way to either accept or reject the concept as a whole and have a rational and useful government.

There is no question that smoking is harmful to both the individual and to others in its presence. This is a scientifically and medically proven fact. For an industry to be based on the destruction of the health of millions of people strikes me as not only criminal but a severe burden in terms of finance and human suffering to the human community as a whole and it is an indulgence that deserves to be stopped. If nothing else, the severely stressed health system cannot afford it.


you make very well thought out and articulate points. i just can't agree because it so often ignores choice.
choice is something i embrace fully and a person has a right to do whatever they want with themselves and their bodies as long as they are not harming the liberty (life, property, and freedom) of another it is cool. they just have to also accept the consequences of their choices. and just as i do not think a government has the right to protect me from myself i also do not expect society to take care of me for the choices i make.


And smoking does impact the environment of those around you. The choice is who leaves. Does the smoker leave or does the non smoker leave.

Should people have to work in smokey workplaces?

People have choice. They can smoke at home or in an unenclosed space.

If the government offends them that much they have the choice to live somewhere else. ;)


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Aug 2010, 5:11 am

BigK wrote:

And smoking does impact the environment of those around you. The choice is who leaves. Does the smoker leave or does the non smoker leave.

Should people have to work in smokey workplaces?

People have choice. They can smoke at home or in an unenclosed space.

If the government offends them that much they have the choice to live somewhere else. ;)


Some of the Pro Nannies believe that smoking is a burden on society even when done at home or in a wide open space. Why? Because it negatively impacts one's health. If one is sick he is a burden on his fellows who must (?) pay for his treatment or cure. And even if one can afford medical care out of pocket he is consuming resources that others might need.

The general principle being advanced as that one's state of being is the concern not just of himself, but of society in general. If one has a talent, the pro-Nannies believe he is obliged to exercise his talent for the General Good.

My own attitude? F*ck the General Good. My life, my time and my being is MINE. They do not belong to society. As long as I do not infringe the time and liberty of others or impose a special on unreasonable hazard on others I should be free to act as I see fit.

I swear by my life and my love of it I will not live for the sake of anyone else nor will I require anyone else to live for mine.

ruveyn