Quote :

"our ultimate goal is to ban smoking in any and every public place. then, once we accomplish that, we will work to criminalize smoking around children, whether its in a private home, vehicle or whatever."

so, your ultimate goal is to remove people's rights, plain and simple. A bar owner has the RIGHT to dictate what goes on in his bar wrt smoking. period.

kinda funny, though. you'll tell the repubs that they shouldn't fuck w/ consenting adults in the privacy of their home, but you'll tell a smoker not to smoke in the privacy of his own property. *cough*fuckinghypocrite*cough*

10/27/2007 10:05:16 PM

Quote :

"A bar owner has the RIGHT to dictate what goes on in his bar wrt smoking. period."

what about w/r/t serving and drinking alcohol?
what about sex?
what about stripping?
is a bar owner immune from government laws and regulations just because he owns a bar?

10/27/2007 10:19:37 PM

those are irrelevant, because the bar owner has the right to dictate this particular act. Now, the gubment is saying "nope, can't do what you want in your own place, cause we say so."

10/27/2007 10:22:32 PM

no, they're not irrelevant. The 'gubment' has, at sometime in the past, made laws and statutes concerning serving and drinking alcohol and other activities that may or may not go on inside privately owned establishments like bars. If the government now outlaws smoking in a bar/restaurant, then that law is no different any law already on the books concerning activity inside the bar.

It's just that up until now, they have chosen not to make laws concerning smoking in particular, while the other laws are simply the status quo. Whether you agree with the law or not, it's still within the rights of the legislative branch to make such a statutes. I'm sure other people will not agree with it as well, and that's what we have the court system for.

It sounds to me like you're saying that smoking is somehow inherently different than other activities - "the bar owner has the right to dictate this particular act".
Now i'm asking, Why?

[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 10:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2007 10:30:23 PM

then I ask you, what about this particular act gives the government the right to remove the bar owner's right of deciding about it for himself?

10/27/2007 10:37:16 PM

I'm not making an argument either way. You are. I'm just asking rhetorical questions.

If you want to go all Libertarian "stay out of my bedroom and give me back my tax money" or whatever, that's fine. I'm just saying, at least be consistent. If you feel so offended by a smoking ban, I would expect you to be the first in line to repeal all the alcohol, drugs, sex, food and health regulations that bars have to abide by too.

10/27/2007 11:06:15 PM

Quote :

"so, your ultimate goal is to remove people's rights"

I already covered this on page 2 or so. Smoking is NOT a right. You don't have the "right" to smoke any more than you have the "right" to consume nothing but McDonald's and cola. "Rights" are things that every person needs to be able to reasonably get by in life, such as (nutritional) food, education, and health care. You don't have to smoke and eat fatty foods to be able to successfully get through life. It just so happens that society doesn't give enough of a shit to tell you not to do certain things, like playing M-rated games. Nobody is under any moral obligation to ensure that you get do these things, you get to do them for as long as they aren't deemed detrimental to the good of the community. They are privileges, just like owning and driving a car. You don't have the "right" to drive a car, you have to demonstrate competency to earn the privilege. That's why you have to get that thing called a "license." There is no license to be able to smoke, granted, although there are age restrictions upon who can purchase tobacco, etc. Those restrictions make the assumption that, by the time you're old enough to purchase the product, you are old and mature enough to handle using it properly. But now society is saying "competency isn't good enough, cigarettes have no demonstrable value and are actually a dead weight. Therefore, we are beginning to ban them."

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that society is ever-wise in all of its decisions. If you feel that a ban is wrong or unjust, you can petition, complain to your representative, etc. The system isn't infallible (or even consistent), and more often than not there's a politician out there who will ride their scapegoats to scare people, but if you have a concern you should make yourself heard. But you really need to show one of two things: 1) the thing being banned doesn't really hurt anyone (except for those who use it), or 2) the benefit/gain to society is enough to offset any costs. This might not be effective in today's scaremongering climate, but that's more of a problem with the system itself and not with your arguments.

[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM. Reason : blah]

10/27/2007 11:15:49 PM

I'm sorry if I repeat anything, I haven't read the whole thread. However, I feel that people who complain about 2nd hand smoke should realize that it's only really going to affect you if you're around someone who smokes a lot. Studies have compared a persons lung that lived in a major city with a persons lung that lived with a smoke and they actually looked quite similar. So unless the city you live in has really clean air, second hand smoke isn't the biggest issue.

Also, I highly doubt they will ban smoking in North Carolina. Tobacco is such a large industry here that IF they do ban smoking in North Carolina, it will be the last state to do so.

Some cities here have gone smoke free, like Asheville. I was there this past summer, and granted for people who don't smoke it's very very nice. I smoke, but not often I have maybe 5 cigarettes a week, unless of course I'm drinking that weekend. However, there are times when I'm not smoking that I go somewhere that I prefer to not smell smoke while I'm eating, or if i'm sick. I appreciate that some places are smoke free.
But it does suck that some bars are smoke free too, cause for me drinking and smoking go hand in hand.

Anytime I went over to UNC's campus and I was smoking I always felt so much out of place, and people looked at me weird. It was also funny because people actually thought they were the first person that has ever told me that smoking was bad for me.

UNC sucks.

10/27/2007 11:29:10 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry if I repeat anything, I haven't read the whole thread. However, I feel that people who complain about 2nd hand smoke should realize that it's only really going to affect you if you're around someone who smokes a lot. Studies have compared a persons lung that lived in a major city with a persons lung that lived with a smoke and they actually looked quite similar. So unless the city you live in has really clean air, second hand smoke isn't the biggest issue."

I'm not saying that you're lying, but a link to that study would be nice.

In any case, so what if the lungs of a smoker and a city-dweller look the same? All that means is that city air is fairly dirty. Besides, that doesn't mean that secondhand smoke is somehow less dangerous. There is plenty of literature that indicates that secondhand smoke is not something you want to spend a whole lot of your time around. For starters, here's a link to the Surgeon General's 2006 report on the affects of secondhand smoke.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/

10/27/2007 11:38:58 PM

Quote :

"The ban will be enforced by the community."

Sounds a bit toothless there.

OK in our libertarian land, you would of course be allowed to smoke since you own your body and not the State. Your cigarettes are your property, you may dispose of them as you wish. So you actually do have a right to smoke your own property.

Quote :

""Rights" are things that every person needs to ....get by in life,"

I think you are confusing a 'right' with a want, need or desire. If someone else has to provide it for you, it ain't a right.

So you have a right to smoke, but you do not have a right to cause force or fraud on another. Now are you forcing the other person standing next to you to breath in your noxious smoke?

Is it an absolute certainty that second-hand smoke is a killer? In 1992, an EPA report on Passive Smoke, which was funded by the American Cancer Society, reported that up to 50,000 deaths per year in the US were attributable to second hand smoke. Yet the raw database of this study has yet to be released for any critical examination.

What about the claim that smoker's health costs put a burden on everyone else? We would have to look closely at how much smoker's cost the gov't vs the money taken in each year by cigarette taxes. If the gov't takes in more money than we pay out in smoker's health care, where's the burden?

And before we call an all-out War-On-Smoking, we should examine the results of the War-On-Drugs. Is drug use down? I know that asset seizure, and jailing non-violent drug users is up.

Allowing gov't control on smoking does not guarantee our health..it just begets more regulation, unintended consequences and more power for politicians.

Why feed the Beast?

10/27/2007 11:56:25 PM

what about the 9th admendment, you can't use your rights against other people.

So if you say you have a right to smoke, however smoking is harmful to other people. You can't smoke around someone because you have no right to harm them. Gah I'm too tired to try to talk smart.

^^I don't have a link, this is just something that I remember hearing way back. I'm probably wrong. But it at least sounds like something plausible.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 12:29 AM. Reason : ]

10/28/2007 12:29:12 AM

besides the fact that smokers have disgusting breath, yellow teeth and are lazy at work. Not to mention they always stink of smoke.

not to mention all the money wasted on cigarettes.

10/28/2007 4:23:01 PM

bar owners dont have the right to dictate whether or not their employees will be subjected to hazardous work environment -- condtions that degrade their health. you, as a smoker, don't have the right to pollute my environment, in any publicly accessible space, whether its a privately owned establishment or otherwise.

Here's the fact:

states and municipalities are increasingly going smoke-free. and theres nothing you can do about it. enjoy your smoky bars now, because they will soon be an anachronism.

Don't believe me? Then consider this:

who here remembers when you could smoke on buses?

who here remembers when you could smoke on airplanes?

who remembers when you could smoke in the doctors/dentists waiting lobby?

who remembers when you could smoke in the middle of the shopping malls, in every fast food joint, in the libraries, in daycare centers, in hospitals, in court houses, in every commercial and government office building?

I mean, there were ASHTRAYS built into the DESKS and CHAIRS in every public college campus. People used to smoke in class, during lectures!

when i was a kid, the adults used to smoke in church, down in the basement, before and after services. Teachers and parents used to smoke in PUBLIC SCHOOLS in the teacher's break rooms and in the administrative offices.

My HIGH SCHOOL had a designated smoking area behind the building for STUDENTS. we used to stop out there during the breaks between class periods to pull down a quick cigarette.

some of you probably cant even believe this.

and you know what?

one day, in the not too distant future, YOU'RE going to tell kids how you used to smoke in Bars and Restaurants ... and they will look at you with wide eyes, and say "NO SHIT?? REALLY????"

so you guys can bitch and moan about these new laws all you want. just remember, your day is coming and it wont be long.

so enjoy it now while you can.





[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/28/2007 4:41:55 PM

Quote :

"who here remembers when you could smoke on airplanes?"

I'm trying to forget. Air France was always the worst.

10/28/2007 4:43:29 PM

^ yeah, but im talking domestic flights. all carriers, all flights, all over the country. they had ashtrays built into the seat arms. they had "no smoking" lights that would be on during takeoff and landing. i remember short 30 minute flights that people would hate because it was too short to get up to cruising altitude where they could smoke. the stewardess' repertoire included the phrase:

"the captain has turned the No Smoking light off. Please do not flush cigarette butts down the toilets. Use the ashtrays provided"

or something like that. they stopped allowing smoking on domestic flights sometime around 1990 or so... i remember my last flight that i smoked on, i was flying to San Diego to go to boot camp.

10/28/2007 4:55:47 PM

^I didn't live in the US at the time so I had never taken a domestic flight in my life until I moved here. When I lived in the UAE, we drove every where. Even when we took a family vacation to Musket, Oman. So all my flying experiences were international.

(by domestic I mean relative to the country I was in. I had been to the USA during that time but it wasn't what I would call a domestic flight for me )

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/28/2007 4:58:24 PM

Quote :

"bar owners dont have the right to dictate whether or not their employees will be subjected to hazardous work environment -- condtions that degrade their health."

no worker is forced to work for such an establishment, so your point has no merit. Don't wanna work around smoke? Don't work at that bar. easy as that.

10/28/2007 7:54:26 PM

^ yeah, good point.
you know, since nobody is forced to work in any particular place, no other workspaces have employee health and safety standards. right?

10/28/2007 8:34:19 PM

well, given that smoking is not covered by OSHA standards, I'd have to say you are a fucktard, once again

10/28/2007 8:54:30 PM

^Hey now.

Asides from the dangers and stressors inherent in a particular occupation, people have a right to a safe, unthreatening, and healthy working environment.

If a server at Applebee's keeps getting groped by the night manager, and coroporate doesn't respond to his or her complaints, he or she can sue the fuck out of them.

Why should the presence of smoke in the working environment be considered any different than the presence of sexual harrassment?

10/28/2007 10:01:13 PM

I dont smoke and I have a problem with UNC doing this. People should be allowed to do so esp outside. WTF. I imagine there will be some professors who will quit over this if they hold them to it.

SPK, you arent serious? I guess if someone chooses to work in a bar, you can assume a couple of things. May work in smokey enviro, late hours, and serve alcohol. If you have a problem with those conditions, you may want to try something else. And to use your harrassement scenerio, you should form a group to protect strippers. Those poor girls with no other choices are FORCED to face both sexual harrasement and smoke for fins.

I dont see anything wrong with people smoking outside or in a designated place at public places. I also dont see anything wrong with a bar that doesnt allow smoking, if thats what the OWNER wants and the market dictates. THe flipside is if an owner and market wants a smokers bar, let them have it. Just because I dont like it doesnt mean someone else shouldnt enjoy it, esp when I have the CHOICE to not go in there. These nanny state politics are ridiculous.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 10:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/28/2007 10:14:21 PM

eyedrb, I think your stance on the issue is indicative of your lack of concern for people. It's very ugly.

Take a single mom who works as an administrative assistant in a dentist's office or a teacher who pays loads of child support to his ex-wife and three children. These people are struggling to make ends meet. And your advice to them is, "Tough luck. Get another job." And so they get another job. They get the perfect job for people in their circumstances--waiting tables and tending bar. They can fit it in easily around their full-time jobs and make a decent amount of extra cash to get those ends met at the end of the month. But they have to put up with tons of dangerous, if not deadly, cigarette smoke.

And your advice to them?

Tough luck. Get another job.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 10:23 PM. Reason : Not protecting the servers is classist and wrong.]

10/28/2007 10:21:57 PM

If it bothers them that much, hell ya.

You telling me the only jobs at night require smoking?

And back to your example. The person working at the dentist office should be worried more about NO2 exposure than cig smoke. Since NO2 is the leading cause of birth defects and miscarriages in dental offices. FYI.

Maybe would should outlaw that. Let people have their dental work without pain relief. Or do away with cars and air conditioners. My point is where does it end?

10/28/2007 10:29:04 PM

Quote :

"Asides from the dangers and stressors inherent in a particular occupation, people have a right to a safe, unthreatening, and healthy working environment."

And if a person doesn't like working at that bar, they can quit and go elsewhere. its really fucking simple, darling.

Quote :

"If a server at Applebee's keeps getting groped by the night manager, and coroporate doesn't respond to his or her complaints, he or she can sue the fuck out of them."

Absolutely, but that's only because that kind of shit is unlawful and NOT a right of the manager.

10/28/2007 10:32:49 PM

^^it ends with things that don't benefit us in any way. Smoking has no benefit what so ever to a human being.

10/28/2007 10:44:26 PM

neither do videogames, tanning and nail salons, rims, etc...

You better get going on the legislations.

10/28/2007 10:47:59 PM

^^^^It's a lot more than just them being "bothered" by the smoke. We're talking about physical illnesses and birth defects.

^^^I doubt you're good-looking enough to call me "darling."

And a manager is a manager, not a slave owner. It shouldn't be his or her right to subject his employees to a smoky work environment, just like it isn't his or her right to grab a titty whenever he feels like it.

And stop acting like jobs are in endless supply.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 10:51 PM. Reason : sss]

10/28/2007 10:51:09 PM

stop acting like people are helpless and have no choice.

Face it. There are alot of jobs that pay well bc they are dangerous. If we apply your logic, then we would have stop those jobs too. Imagine a poor coal miner with kids, etc, and needs the money but is forced to work in a coal mine and expose himself to sulfur, coal, and the fear of a collapse. He isnt forced into that job any more than someone taking a job at applebees.

10/28/2007 10:55:56 PM

Quote :

"neither do videogames, tanning and nail salons, rims, etc... You better get going on the legislations"

neither does TWW or drinking pepsi/coke, whats your point? non of the things you listed effect anyone negatively or the people around you.

10/28/2007 10:59:04 PM

Singapore FTW!

10/28/2007 11:00:33 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "neither do videogames, tanning and nail salons, rims, etc... You better get going on the legislations" neither does TWW or drinking pepsi/coke, whats your point? non of the things you listed effect anyone negatively or the people around you. "

I was really hoping you would take the bait.

Ahhhhh
1. Video games are thought to lead to obesity, aggresion, etc.
2. Tanning can cause skin cancer
3. Nail salon's expose people and workers to chemicals. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/294599_nailsalon04.html
4. Rims, believe it or not, are thought to be dangerous because they are heavy and limit the cars handling. http://www.statesman.com/money/content/shared/money/stories/clark/0406/041216cars.html

And you brought up coke/pepsi. both can lead to obesity and increase in heart disease.
http://madelynfernstrom.ivillage.com/health/2007/07/soda_and_heart_health.html


check-mate

LOL, seriously, have you all seen the movie demolition man?

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 11:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/28/2007 11:11:01 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: stop acting like people are helpless and have no choice. Face it. There are alot of jobs that pay well bc they are dangerous. If we apply your logic, then we would have stop those jobs too. Imagine a poor coal miner with kids, etc, and needs the money but is forced to work in a coal mine and expose himself to sulfur, coal, and the fear of a collapse. He isnt forced into that job any more than someone taking a job at applebees."

No.

There's nothing crazy or slippery slopish about my suggestion. Protecting servers from deadly cigarette smoke is the decent, practical thing to do.

It has nothing to do with coal mining. And, for the most part, coal miners aren't exactly poor. They make upwards of $50,000 a year because their jobs are so dangerous. They routinely come out against more safety measures because the dangers associated with their jobs fetch such high earnings. In many cases, I might argue that they are "forced" into the job, in that it's the best job a minimally educated man in those depressed, isolated, impoverished environments can get.

10/28/2007 11:13:27 PM

dont worry Bridg.

the "doctor" and his paleolithic buddies are on the losing side of this battle. they have no moral ground to stand on. they have no way out of the legislation that is pending all over the nation to send smokers outside next to the dumpsters.

good riddance.

heres the current list of states that have State-wide Bans on smoking in all enclosed public spaces, including bars, restaurants, and workplaces:

WA
OR
CA
AZ
UT
CO
NM
MT
MN
IL
OH
MD
NJ
NY
MA
CT
RI
NH
ME
HI

the following states have statewide bans for restaurants and workplaces

NV
ID
AR
LA
GA
TN
FL
VT

most every other state, except for North Carolina and a few others, have various local municipalities and/or counties that have instituted some various degree of bans on smoking. (Note the ban in Chapel Hill is only for the UNC campus, not for the town)

California is considering laws against tenants smoking in apartment complexes. 82% of renters in California favor a smoking ban in apartment complexes.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States



smokers are a dying breed. literally and figuratively. you're all putting up such a noble fight as you go down... but no one is fooled.

you're all going to go down. one way or another.

10/29/2007 1:04:23 AM

^I'm not on your side, by the way.

I'm interested in protecting people from second-hand smoke.

But I'm by no means against smoking. And I'm certainly not a douchebag about it, which I totally think you are.

10/29/2007 1:29:06 AM

thank you, sweetheart.

i got a big kick out of your last post. I LOLed, in fact.

and i know youre not. you're a nasty smoker too, IIRC? but i appreciate your willingness to take responsiblity for it.

and yes, i am a douchebag. My wife says its the #1 reason why I've never had any friends.

10/29/2007 1:50:16 AM

the government needs to fucking give out nicorette gum

10/29/2007 2:01:09 AM

^ I thought you quit smoking.

10/29/2007 5:27:16 AM

moral ground? WTF. I dont smoke. I also dont have a problem with banning it INSIDE public buildings. However, if a business wants to have a smoking section it is their right. It is also YOUR right to not enter that business. They have even started to ban smoking in ones own car. That is total BS.

Bridget, the question Im trying to get you to see is where does it end. Why are you for protecting bartenders, but leaving alone alot of the examples I mentioned above. It is a slippery slope.

10/29/2007 8:47:21 AM

Let's try looking at the problem from a property rights viewpoint. Some questions follow.

First, is one able to "own" the air inside his property? If so then he should be able to allow smoking, right? But what if second-hand smoke kills. Is the owner now committing murder by allowing smoke to be breathed in by his patrons? Are parents committing homocide by smoking around their children?

Now what about outside? The courts have decided that everyone owns the airwaves, thus the gov't owns them and regulates radio and TV signals. If the air is "owned by the public", then the gov't owns the air and can decide what we put in it.

If the gov't, in the form of the EPA, can go after big air polluters on behalf of the public...why would we be surprised that they now see fit to go after small independent air polluters such as smokers?

One aspect of a right is that you can enjoy it without anyone else provide it for you. So do you have a right to breath clean air? Does the smoker have to stop smoking around you in order to provide you clean air? Or do you simply have the right to persue clean air by seeking it out on your own?

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 9:30:34 AM

Quote :

"Ahhhhh 1. Video games are thought to lead to obesity, aggresion, etc. 2. Tanning can cause skin cancer 3. Nail salon's expose people and workers to chemicals. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/294599_nailsalon04.html 4. Rims, believe it or not, are thought to be dangerous because they are heavy and limit the cars handling. http://www.statesman.com/money/content/shared/money/stories/clark/0406/041216cars.html And you brought up coke/pepsi. both can lead to obesity and increase in heart disease. http://madelynfernstrom.ivillage.com/health/2007/07/soda_and_heart_health.html"

I was really hoping you'd take the bait too...

Non of those things you listed effect anyone around you. You want to be a fat ass, fine...besides being disgusting to look at and body odor. Neither of which will cause any health hazards to me or cause me to smell like you. And if you died from it, well hey...its just helping to weed out the bad apples.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 9:43 AM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 9:43:21 AM

I support ban on smoking in public building with the exception of bars and restaurants. Due to the social nature of these places they should be able to decide to have partition of smoking/non-smoking, all smoking, or no smoking. If you do not like the smoky bar atmosphere find somewhere else. I also support apt complexes having the ability to designate apts as non-smoking.

I also support the designation of "smoking areas" in a outdoor ventilated area that is conveniently accessible to people wishing to smoke. 100 FT from any building is NOT conveniently accessible. If the various buildings at UNC are like that of any other university than I am sure they all have multiple entrances/exits. One exit can be designated for smoking with the other(s) free from smokers for those bitchy people who really can not tolerate the whole 2 seconds that they may get a whiff of cigarette smoke.

People will always find something to bitch about.

10/29/2007 9:43:52 AM

not to mention that almost everything in American grocery stores causes cancer in some people because of all the added shit. (for lack of a better word)

But non cause deaths at the rate of smoking.

10/29/2007 9:45:01 AM

Quote :

"One aspect of a right is that you can enjoy it without anyone else provide it for you. "

Earthdog, I take it you dont consider healthcare a right then? Same for your golovko?

Obesity does effect others. There was actually a study that supported if you hang out with fatties you will become fat. Not to mention the costs that are shared by others.

The toxic chemicals at nail saloons are a danger to those exposed to it. Just the same as second hand smoke.

Not too different imho


Hur, I completely agree with your post. That sums up my view on this matter.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 10:08:15 AM

People complain about obesity with particular focus on McD's. Simple solution don't eat at fucking McDonalds; exercise, and eat healthy.

People bitch about drivers on the cell phone. Sometimes especially when trying to get directions it is necessary to make a call. Their is a difference btw someone cruising on the highway on the cell phone; and someone swerving through traffic, trying to take turns, and being a hazard while on the cell phone. The later case would warrant a ticket of reckless driving if a police officer sees them.

MADD bitches about drinking

Evangelical Christians complain about sexuality on TV; with parents going ape-shit b.c Janet Jackson's boob popped out during a half time show.

the blind even bitch about hybrid cars and target not having a "blind friendly " website.

BTW speaking of obesity i was disgusted at BaDa wings yesterday where two morbidly obese bitches were gluttonsly chowing down on chicken wings a big basket of fries and drinking beer. Their children were at the table next to them and sure enough they were fat too.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM. Reason : a]

10/29/2007 11:02:45 AM

Quote :

"Earthdog, I take it you dont consider healthcare a right then? Same for your golovko?"

what? I hate smoking so now I hate healtcare too?

10/29/2007 11:50:44 AM

Quote :

"And if you died from it, well hey...its just helping to weed out the bad apples. "

I was assuming from that quote.

Not that I disagree with it, I was just asking you a question.

10/29/2007 12:06:08 PM

my point was that if you are that type of person to sit and let your health deteriorate from playing video games or whatever...then healthcare or no healthcare, you aren't going to do shit about it.

healthcare is a right everyone should have. Its up to you if you want to use it or not.

10/29/2007 12:07:56 PM

^like say by smoking?

Thats my point. Where does it end. You want to ban video games next?

10/29/2007 12:15:07 PM

why are you continuing to harp on the video game comparison?
Video gaming is an activity that people generally do at home in private, by themselves or in small groups. There are no detrimental health effects to people near them.

Smoking, though, it not a "self-contained" activity. Simply by being in the vicinity of a smoker, a non-smoker's health and comfort are directly impacted.

10/29/2007 12:23:13 PM

no, video games does not effect anyone but the person playing the video game.

Smoking effects everyone in the area.

^even when a heavy smoker is not smoking anyone near them has their comfort level effected because of the horrible stench thats associated with heavy smokers. Bad breath, the smell of cigarette smoke embedded in their pours/clothing

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 12:26 PM. Reason : asd]

10/29/2007 12:24:02 PM