It's time to ban alcohol in bars!

[Cascadian]

Here is the proof that it is deadly! We better make laws to save us from the dangers of alcohol! We ban smoking, let's really go all out!




http://www.wallacejordan.com/drugfree/drugrisk.htm

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/fst/faculty/acree/fs430/notes_lawless/Boozisbad.html


http://www.engology.com/articlealcohol.htm

[havocmom]

1. My shot of whiskey is unlikely to give your lungs cancer

Find a more worthy crusade to grumble about.

[mmonk]

3. My car is unlikely to run you over

while I smoke.

[mondo joe]

14. Driving while intoxicated is already illegal.

Perhaps you didn't know.

[havocmom]

20. mondo joe shoots and scores

the crowd goes wild!
:applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[mmonk]

I'm glad you walk to bars then.

[Oeditpus Rex]

42. Perhaps that's why so few people do it

:eyes:

[DS1]

202. *ZING*

:applause:

[LincolnMcGrath]

4. lol

Didn't you hear the news? Smoke is safe now! I found it on the internets!

[boston bean]

6. It may not give me lung disease, but it just may

cause a fatal accident, ruin a family, cause liver disease, and many other social illnesses that affect many in the population.

Now, when I say this, I am not necessarily responding to your habit of taking a shot of whiskey, which I would never do, I think its gross, but in general.

[havocmom]

16. Never had a drink then drive

Can't nail me for that one.

And I don't go to bars anyway. Can't take the smoke.

[boston bean]

25. I don't go to bars either, can't stand the drunks! nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

30. and I stopped being a bartender

cause I couldn't stand the drunks!

It was a hazard of the position, so I found another job.

;)

[boston bean]

33. Off topic, but I saw in a thread

a couple of days ago you got laid off.

So sorry!

I got laid off last Wednesday! It was a complete shock to me.

Just wanted to let you know that I understand all too well.

Good Luck in your quest finding the right employment soon!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

69. Thank you

I fear I might be a basket case were it not for DU and that thread.

:)

[GrumpyGreg]

34. Ditto ! n/t

[mmonk]

49. So what's the problem?

[mondo joe]

17. Who cares if you give yourself lung OR liver disease?

Just so long as you drinking it doesn't get it into the body of bystanders.

[seabeyond]

37. rapes beatings killing due to alcohol. you are saying fabricated

studies of second hand smoke being a possible killer manifesting years into someones life span is more important than all the rapes, beatings, killings, car accidents and other deaths associated with drinking. nah..... that argument doesnt fly

[LincolnMcGrath]

45. Fabricated Studies?

Lordy Lordy

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

48. Amen and hallelujah. wink

[LincolnMcGrath]

54. So I can start smoking? YAY

[seabeyond]

58. i wouldnt suggest it. but you certainly could. n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

62. Can I blow smoke on your children?

Since it is safe. We could play a game where I blow smoke rings at them trying to 'ring' there little noses. Kind of like the conehead's ring toss game. I just know your children would love it.

[seabeyond]

72. no they wouldnt, they dont like the smell. it would be terribly rude

and obnoxious. but it wouldnt kill them either and i wouldnt act as if it would. i would however make sure my children werent around you so they didnt have to endure you pissy attitude.

[LincolnMcGrath]

79. Why would it be rude? Or obnoxious

Ring toss is fun! Let me hold the baby, the baby loves games!

Wanting to engage the children in some games is not pissy, it is good clean fun!

[seabeyond]

126. someone puts on too much perfume. that is rude and i see it as

obnoxious, having been overwhelmed when preg and having to leave the restaurant, and no longer wanting the food i ordered. i dont advocate a march against perfume, not to mention create studies about the effects on my health.

a erson not taking a shower, rude anyway, not seeing it as necessarily obnoxious. i guess it would be the intent on human smelliness. laziness and just not caring, i could throw in obnoxious. unaware or unable. ..... no obnoxious.

we played smoke rings when i was a kid. it was fun. i can remember. parents young. early 60's. an unaware time. we didnt drop down and die. my kids are told today they will drop down and die. what a silly game today. no..... we hate the smoke. my kids would not drop down and die either. they just wouldnt. i assure you. i know this from personal experience

i think it is pretty clear i would not advocate anyone smoking. i think you probably know htis. hence, obnoxious. you can play otherwise, but silly us validating it.

but what they give the children today is lie.

ends justify the mean, thru lie

i would rather my children learn to not smoke, from the truth of it. but i am not going to fear them into it with lies. that they clearly see is not true. i want them to be able to trust me

i am not asking you to live life like that, nor will i expect it. it is clear i would be disappointed. but i am not going to do it. wont honor it. wont be guilted or shamed into doing you lie.

[mmonk]

77. Sure,

if I can down a few drinks and take yours for a ride around town.

[mondo joe]

82. Why are you comparing an activity you support to an illegal one?

How very odd.

[LincolnMcGrath]

83. Are you saying smoking is dangerous?

I just found out tonight that second hand smoke is safe. Right here on the internets!

[mondo joe]

90. A new defense of smoking: it's not as dangerous as drunk driving.

Reminds me of the "Would you rather have Sadaam in power" argument.

Light up kids!

[LincolnMcGrath]

91. Marlboro or Mack Truck Kools or Kenworths

I report you decide :rofl:

[mmonk]

169. Smoking is very dangerous to the smoker

Second hand smoke is just blowing smoke.;-)

[mondo joe]

184. But I respect the right of the individual to do what they like to their

own body. :-)

[seabeyond]

190. i call bullshit. or you dont understand respect n/t

[mondo joe]

197. Call what you like. I respect your right to do what you like with your

body.

[mondo joe]

47. Those things are already illegal, and are not the result of responsible

drinking.

[LostinVA]

148. People don't rape, beat, or/and kill because of alcohol

You do it because you're a sociopath. Alcohol doesn't give someone a personality disorder. You beat your wife 'caus you get tanked up? You'd do it untanked... it's in you. I have alcoholics in my family, and their personalties don't drastically change when they're drunk.

I think that's an easy excuse too many people use.

[seabeyond]

153. People don't rape, beat, or/and kill because of alcohol

oohhhhhhh this one, this one has me in wow. you are so full of it. you couldnt be more off in every way. like hell it doesnt change behavior. i dont think you would get a single person who experiences the drunk, be it educator, doctor, family member, AA....... or anywhere else, agree with you that behavior is not effect by alohol and beating rape and murder escalates with alcohol. personal experience. never a big drinker, but when i did.....wow.

i dont dirnk and for years didnt drink cause i did things i would never do sober.

i beg to differ

[mondo joe]

157. Then you need only demonstrate a causal relationship.

But you won't be able to do that.

[seabeyond]

161. i beg your pardon.

casual relationships?

[mondo joe]

168. Causal. Not casual. Causal. n/t

[seabeyond]

186. casual, not casual, that was real helpful. i know the definition of

both words, go figure, i do not know what you are referring to in my post though. that would be helpful to know.

talking have casual relationship with drunk in life? casual relationship with alcohol?

[mondo joe]

203. Are you aware that Casual and Causal are 2 different words?

I don't know why you are going on about a casual relationship when I asked about a causal relationship.

[Cats Against Frist]

165. No. To compare it to a smoking ban she need only provide

a correletive relationship. Not all people who work in smoky bars get cancer. In fact, I'd be willing to be the majority of them do not. And, further, there are still those people with brains who accept that they chose to work at a smoky bar, so I'd be interested in finding out what the percentage of people who get lung cancer from working in a bar are, compared to the number of people who get the shit beat out of them, or killed, while someone else is drunk.

[mondo joe]

170. I don't think most voters would agree with you.

[Cats Against Frist]

179. You just switched arguments on me

You can't harp about people not making logical arguments, and switch argument. I said that a correlative relationship is all that's needed to make an alcohol ban similar to a smoking ban.

[mondo joe]

183. Not at all. To win the electorate over you must present a compelling

argument. And while a causal relationship may do that, I don't think a correlative one would.

[Cats Against Frist]

188. But it has

Because it cannot be shown that all people who work in smoking enviornments get cancer. Only some might. That's no different than saying that some people might get their asses kicked if drinking is legal.

You said that because most people don't get drunk and beat up on someone. Most people who work in smoky bars do not get lung cancer. Some people might get beat up, and some people might get lung cancer.

And you made my point -- if all you have to do is present a compelling argument, then Rick Santorum's arguments that gays destroy the family are good enough to justify statewide initiatives against gay marriage.

[mondo joe]

198. Nonsense. Second hand smoke is a proven carcinogen - it

is causal, not corelated.

Proving that it happens 100% of thetime to 100% of the people is irrelevant.

[seabeyond]

187. what an argument. ya most voters didnt agree with me on kerry

either. go figure

[foreigncorrespondent]

74. Trouble is...

...there are people who do get rather violent while intoxicated. My mothers ex was one. He would beat the absolute shit out of her. That is a classic case of the booze he drinks affecting the health of another person.

I work in the security industry. Many times I have had to escort drunk people out of places. Do I complain about it? NO! I just go about my duties.

When I am out and faced with drunk people do I complain about it? NO! I just go about my business.

But I light up and all I get is complain after complaint, and I am fed up with it.

If you go to an eviroment where there is booze then expect to face drunk people. Also if you go to an eviroment that you would expect to find smokers then expext to find them, and don't complain. Don't like it? LEAVE! No one is forcing you to remain and be smoked out if you don't like it!

[mondo joe]

78. Once more: hurting others is illegal.

If your drinking hurts others IT IS ILLEGAL. In at least some locations, the same is true of smoking.

[Kingshakabobo]

124. You must be one of those really obnoxious smokers if

all you get is complaints when you smoke. I would suggest being a little more courteous.

[seabeyond]

128. when the argument is the mere sight of seeing a smoker

causes death. from a society that has the intent to guilt and shame a person into behavior. you can hardly blame the offender. just seeing me throws anti smokers into a tizzy. i dont even have to have a cig in hand, with some people. they are pissed....... i smoke. and they make it clear to me. oh, my nose, you smellllll like smoke. what are you doing to me. you offend me so. you will cause my death.

reality check

[Kingshakabobo]

135. Yawn. Another strawman argument.

Show me were anyone is saying the sight of a smoker causes death.


How do they know you are a smoker?

Perhaps you were an obnoxious smoker in the past?

Here's a reality check for YOU. If your habit/addiction causes so much grief to other people maybe you should take a good look in the mirror. Just sayin.

[seabeyond]

149. you are wrong. you dont want to listen. you want me to feel shame

i give it to you. i feel shame. now what. shoot me. kick me some more. how good does it feel. are you feeling really really self righteous yet. we all know the feeling of superiority. we are adults. smart. we know the pecking order. it is also a human characteristic. i wont even say failure.

cool. you dont know me. you dont know what i offer in this world. to society, to my children, husband. to all my family. friends. you dont have a clue. and you dont care. i ...... am a smoker

reality. you kinda just did, exactly what i am talking about. you arent smelling me, you arent getting smoke in your face. you are not even seeing me. but....... you clearly told me to put tail between my legs, head down in shame and pee myself in your holier than thou bullshit.

well

as much as our society decides to do this with so many things; the feel is easy to recognize. and i say no

but yes. you made my point. this is what i am talking about as you tell me no one does it.

[mondo joe]

154. I don't know where you got this fixation on shame.

Why would anyone care what you feel anyway?

It's pretty funny that you could confuse concern people have for how your smoking effects others with a desire for you to feel shame.

Sounds like a family of origin issue.

[seabeyond]

160. you can deny that is what society does, it is just being dishonest

your post is full of intellectual inconsistancies and hypocrisies.

of course you dont care what i think.

of course you wont listen.

[mondo joe]

177. "Society" is not monolithic.

And it has little or nothing to do with what posters as individuals have to say.

I see no reason to feel shame for smoking or cocaine or drinking or abortion or promiscuity and so on.

Your shame is a personal matter, and no one can make you feel it except yourself.

[seabeyond]

189. self delete. i am done. n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

175. You are a grown-up now. I'm sure you can handle it. If not...

maybe you shouldn't take part in these discussions. I'm sure you can handle it but you use emotion and hyperbole because your argument has no logic on which to stand.

It's a health issue for me. Your sense of shame has nothing to do with it. Get help if you must.

Poor persecuted smokes forced to face reality that their habit causes health problems for others.
"But, but, but, I've ALWAYS been able to smoke and make other people breath my fumes."

All this bullshit about prohibition is just that. BULLSHIT. No one (here at least) is talking about banning smoking. They are only talking about banning it in PUBLIC PLACES/ACCOMMODATIONS.

I see it as a step forward due to a loosening of the grip that the tobacco lobby has had on this country for years. I grew up in Chicago and watched one of our news anchormen get sued (i think he lost 2 or 3 million bucks) by big tobacco for saying, during one of his investigative reports, that tobacco companies were marketing to minors. Well, years later, it turns out it was true. I wonder if he ever got his money back.

Of course, we have a few tobacco company stooges on this board saying second-hand smoke isn't harmful. LOL.

[foreigncorrespondent]

208. You must be one of those really...

...obnoxious DUers who believe that everyone but a non smoker does wrong!

For your information I am actually quite courteous about smoking. I do not smoke near open doorways. I do not smoke around non smokers (I walk away.) If people are still eating I do not light up (I hate that myself while eating.) So you just made a complete ass of yourself!

The trouble is non smokers think they have rights while smokers should get none. When a smoker lights up we are the ones who face harsh looks and some disgusting comments (as your comment above proves.)

It is like when you get a rather large person in a restaurant all they get is hateful jeers from onlookers as they eat. So perhaps if people weren't so into themselves and forgetting that every other person on this planet has feelings as well, society would still be the rational place I grew up in.

[mmonk]

9. same

"Find a more worthy crusade to grumble about."

[Cascadian]

10. You guys do not know parody when you see it.

I am just making humor to what I feel is a stupid law. That's all. Talk to me when you get a sense of humor!



John

[madeline_con]

15. It seems to be rampant ...

I guess that's why the little :sarcasm: thingy's provided.

[Warpy]

23. Sorry, you failed.

People are explaining to you why it's a good law. Now it's your turn. Listen to them and learn something.

[Cascadian]

29. I have heard them.

I don't have to like it if I want. Some people love to eat peas but I don't like peas. I don't like to follow the crowd. Why should I?

My point is that if you can ban smoking in bars, you can ban or limit something else. It has been proven time and time throughout history.


And not only that, I think you need a sense of humor. You probably don't have one!


John

[Kingshakabobo]

127. News flash for you.

There are a lot of other things that have been baned in public places including restaurants and bars.

asbestos, lack of fire exits, rat droppings, salmonella, non-working bathrooms, knife fighting, dwarf tossing, human sacrifice(yes even when the subject was willing), Russian roulette etc. etc.

[mmonk]

43. Nah

I already have plenty of sense.



BTW, I agree with your post and its humour. I was responding to havocmom.

[Cascadian]

52. sorry.

My bad.

[mermaid]

12. Maybe Not, But Perhaps You Have Heard Of The Mathematical Equation

"Instant Asshole, Just Add Alcohol?"

[havocmom]

24. that's actually the OTHER reason I don't do bars

The first reason, being smoke, but I do have a low asshole threshold.

My, easy to tell who's ox gets gored when smoking bans come up.

[porphyrian]

38. Why would you put your lungs in a smoking bar?

Did someone kidnap you and force you to enter such an establishment? If that's happening with any regularity, then maybe you have something about banning smoking there. Otherwise, you're just trying to tell consenting adults what to do in their private establishment, and that's really none of your business.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

50. what is and isn't their business is certainly none of yours.

;)

[porphyrian]

110. It is when people are trying to legislate away personal liberty...

...from consenting adults, because that includes me. No one has to enter a bar where smoking is permitted, ever. Everyone who does is a willing participant. In the odd case where that may not be true, there are already laws established regarding those circumstances.

[mondo joe]

125. Your liberty hasn't been legislated away.

You can't do a long list of things in bars - you can't legally have sex in a bar, cook on a grill in a bar, bring your cat into a bar and on and on and on.

Are you going on about the fascists preventing you, a consenting adult, from doing those things?

Are you going on about the fascists preventing you from smoking in theaters and office buildings?

[porphyrian]

134. Don't pretend we haven't already gone over this.

Or did you just like the banter the first time?

I do have a problem with consenting adults not being able to have sex in bars. However, as you point out, that's already legislated.

And, though you insist on denying it, I've already made the distinction between bars, theaters and office buildings. Thanks for ignoring it, though.

[mondo joe]

138. We did go over it - and you are still wrong. n/t

[porphyrian]

145. You've made your opinion abundantly clear, I assure you. - n/t

[mondo joe]

67. Since there are no smoking bars in WA state that's not a valid question

here.

And those private establishments are not purely private. As a matter of law they are public accommodations.

[porphyrian]

109. There you go again.

Joe, there is a big difference between what I'm saying and the legal jargon you insist on clinging to in order to argue with me. I know you understand my argument. Do you just want to wrastle?

[mondo joe]

114. I'm talking about a legal matter - why wouldn't I use the legal term

rather than some definition you've made up?

Common language is necessary to a meaningful dialog. I suggest we use the legal definition rather than making up our own, so the words mean the same things.

[Kingshakabobo]

130. We wouldn't want facts and logic in our way now. n/t

[porphyrian]

133. The legal definition is stupid, and shouldn't apply to this.

It was created for bureacratic reasons only, and doesn't take this argument into account at all. By legal definition, African-Americans are Black. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the merits of using alternate terminology, or that an argument is meaningless when we choose to refer to them as African-Americans.

Legal jargon is not a common language, Joe. It is the tool by which the government controls us. Get another argument already.

[mondo joe]

137. Then stop trying to invoke "privately owned", which is a legal matter, if

you don't want to own up to what the law actually says.

[porphyrian]

141. No, Joe. Just stop pretending you don't understand the argument.

It's a good one. It's about our freedom, and the stupid imposition of unnecessary laws to impede that freedom.

[mondo joe]

147. I understand it - but it's a poor argument.

Privately owned businesses have ALWAYS been subject to regulation and will continue to be (unless the NeoCons have their way completely).

[porphyrian]

172. This isn't about regulating private businesses,...

...it's about not making the distiction between the various types of private businesses in that regulation. And, despite your implication, my argument against smoking bans isn't NeoCon.

It's not a poor argument, it's a good one. It's about making the choice to keep bans on legal behavior between consenting adults in adult establishments off the books.

[mondo joe]

206. Of course it is.

And people can judge these businesses by their essentil and no essential services and other factors as well.

[Toots]

151. But they are not Private establishments they are open to the public

You form a Private Club where only members can enter then you have no problem with smoking bans but you enter a public establishment then you have to expect majority rule especially when it is about health issues...Do you think they can serve drinks in unwashed glasses? Their are health concerns when dealing with the public and they are usually based upon years and years of research and not just gossip spread on the "internets"

[Cats Against Frist]

159. How does a private club mitigate any of the factors that smoke nazis cite?

They still hire employees. The money from the club isn't going into some kind of general kitty to fund anti-smoking campaigns. What if I want to make a club, and charge people 1 cent to be a member? Now I have a private club. What the hell's the difference between doing something like that, and granting a certain percentage of liquor licenses to smoking establishments.

In Idaho, people are bitching that too many private clubs are opening and calling themselves "smoking clubs," and people want to go after them, next.

The goal here is totalitarianism. They will come for the "smoking club," too.

[porphyrian]

174. Why would a non-smoker ever enter a smoking establishment?

Really, how often do you think this would come up?

[mondo joe]

181. Why would a black person ever enter a white's only restaurant?

Why would a woman ever enter a men's only club?

Why would a gay man ever want to work in a school that doesn't want them?

Answer: these are not innate or necessary states for these businesses.

[porphyrian]

196. Why not allow minors in strip joints then?

Trying to equate non-smokers with oppressed minorities is, while amusing, just plain stupid. Smokers have been the minority for decades, if not forever. I guess you enjoy oppressing minorities who don't share your personal minority status, hmm?

Blanket regulation is bullshit. Businesses are not equal, despite the legal definition. Just because that definition states that a business is public doesn't mean it is actually accessible by the entire public, nor should it necessarily be. Thus, passing bans based on that definition as if it is accurate in that sense is dishonest and wrong.

[mondo joe]

205. Because minors have limited access to many things.

They're not allowed in bars in WA state either.

[DistressedAmerican]

146. Pretty Hard On The Liver Though.

I think the OP is silly. I smoke and I really do not mind going outside to do it. It is my habit. I do not need to share my smoke with othrs.

However, this argument is just as silly. It implies that alcohol does not have deadly health effects and that is clearly just plain wrong. Does it harm your lungs? No. Does that mean it is not unhealthy? Of course not.

If course I have also never heard of anyone being exposed to unwanted second hand whiskey.

[SofaKingLiberal]

2. oh

:popcorn:

[Mind_your_head]

5. n/t

:rofl:

[gratuitous]

7. Upset because you can't light up next to me and blow smoke in my face?

I'm not.

[Cascadian]

8. Uh surprise!

I don't smoke. But I do believe in civil liberties.


John

[gratuitous]

13. Whoops, I must have missed that one

Which constitutional article or amendment are you referring to? Let's see, Congressmen have to be 25 years old, the president is the chief executive, uh, no housing of soldiers in private homes, equal protection, presidential succession. Nope, I don't see a right to smoke there.

[madeline_con]

18. See anything denying the right to smoke? eom

[gratuitous]

40. What is this "right" to smoke?

How is this a matter of civil liberties? The new law in Washington prohibits people from lighting up in indoor public places or at the entrance to public places. It doesn't stop one person from smoking in his or her own house, for example, or their friends' houses, or out in the middle of a parking lot. Just the indoor public places. That's all. You know, the place where folks who are allergic to cigarette smoke or who have multiple chemical sensitivities are allowed to go?

Maybe y'all should have given money to the measure's opponents instead of whining about the measure's passing now.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

55. here come all those allergic people!!!!

duck!

[Cats Against Frist]

117. No one is allergic to cigarette smoke. It's not an allergen. n/t

[mmonk]

61. But you want to keep us

from lighting up when we're not sitting next to you. Suppose I'm in the bar accross the street.

[gratuitous]

108. I don't "want" you to do anything

Your beef is with the electorate of the State of Washington. And they decided this issue last month.

Smoke at home. Nothing prevents that.

[MrSlayer]

11. Ban everything bad for you!

We can live in a beautiful society like in that movie "Demolition Man".
No sex, no drugs, no drinking, no foul language, no music except commercial jingles, no meat, no salt and certainly no smoking. Think of how great it would be. :crazy:

[Cascadian]

22. If things keep up like this...

it might happen!


John

[Warpy]

19. No matter how much alcohol that guy next to me is pouring

down his throat, he's not going to make me drunk. Good thing, because alcohol triggers my migraines.

However, that smoker is going to throw me into bronchospasm so that I will be unable to breathe. Not being able to breathe is not a good thing.

That is the difference. A smoker forces everybody around him to inhale his smoke when he lights up. A drinker only poisons himself.

Got it yet?

[mondo joe]

27. The smoke zealots are bound and determined to IGNORE this distinction.

So they resort to straw men about civil liberties, outlawing everything that can hurt anyone, and anything else they can think of BESIDES the actual issue.

[Stephist]

35. So all people who smoke now are zealots?

:eyes:
I know that when I'm on the interstate I would rather be by a guy who has just drank a case of MGD then a guy who has just smoked a pack in a half of Winston's. Who wouldn't?:sarcasm:

For the record I am not a cigarette smoker, but I've got a La Gloria Cubana thats about to make me a real Zealot.

[mondo joe]

56. No, only the zealots are zealots. Duh.

And when you're on the interstate drunk driving is already illegal because of the threat it poses to others.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

209. And the anti smoking

radicals IGNORE the truth about their FALSE beliefs and prentend that because they don't smoke but do drink that second hand smoke will kill them but that drunk that may just plow down your spouce and kids and kill them is perfectly acceptable because his drinking didn't get you drunk. Nope it didn't. But it killed your family. But hey, that's ok right as long as the booze only goes in him/her.

Good evening Joe. I see tonight you have no more than your same old tired worn out debunked talking points. Still can't come up with anything credible can you? And I see you have your sidekick with you also.

[mermaid]

44. Yeah?? And When That Drinker Becomes A Driver

he puts my life in far more immediate danger than my smoking does yours!

And don't tell me you walk to the bar, or that you always have a designated driver! VERY FEW people are that responsible!

[Stephist]

53. Thank You

That is the absolute truth.

[mondo joe]

65. The absolute truth is we already outlaw harming others in that way.

Now other ways are outlawed as well.

[Stephist]

73. I am so glad we have put a stop to the problem of drinking and driving.

:) since it's illigal it doesn't happen anymore!:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

80. Is that the test? It never happens?

What a funny test you apply -- if it's ever abused then perfectly responsible and harmless use is a problem?

[mondo joe]

64. When the drinker becomes a driver he becomes a threat, and so does the

smoker when he shares his smoke with others.

Provided you keep the harm you doo to yourself I full support your right to do so.

[SOS]

"A drinker only poisons himself."

According to Dr. Nancy Snyderman of ABC News, the perpetrator is drunk in:

70% of child abuse cases
52% of rapes
86% of murders
75% of domestic assault
40% of traffic fatalities (16,000 dead per year)

Alcohol damages much more than just the drinker.

[mondo joe]

155. And yet most drinkers don't do those things at all, hence no

causal relationship.

[buddysmellgood]

21. If you can prove that your consumption next to me, will kill me, I'm with

you.

[Cascadian]

26. OKAY Calm down people!

It is Parody! Look it up!

par·o·dy < párrədee >


noun (plural par·o·dies)

Definitions:

1. amusing imitation: a piece of writing or music that deliberately copies another work in a comic or satirical way


2. parodies in general: parodies as a literary or musical style or genre


3. poor imitation: an attempt or imitation that is so poor that it seems ridiculous


I am just trying to add some humor to this issue plus ridicule at the absurdity of it all. Lighten up! (not literally though!)

John

[mondo joe]

28. I guess this thread falls under definition 3.

[buddysmellgood]

32. That parody stuff can be a tricky thing in print. Thanks.

[wuushew]

31. Nicotine as consumed via smoke has very few positives

Air pollution, stench, increased health risks for the user and others, enabling powerful corporations etc. weigh heavily against the presumed perks of the nicotine to the smoker.

Can that be said of alcohol or food? They at least have some positive utility aspects to counteract their negatives. Prohibition of alcohol was a monumental failure which was worse than the existing abuse of alcohol.

Cigarettes are provided in bulk at the prices they are by large scale industrial production. The prohibition of cigarettes would most certainly lead to a decrease in the overall volume of product sold to the consumer. Hopefully some of the demand for a combustable good could be met by marijuana which has numerous health and economic benefits. The legalization of industrial hemp could mean millions for energy, chemical and paper alternatives.


What disappoints me about smokers is the poor avenue by which they affect others with their vice. Our needs and desires can be analyzed and dissected according to an overall scheme or plan of consumption. The user of a SUV is not wasteful per say in desiring cargo capacity, but rather paying for features and weight which will be seldom or ever used. Can nicotine be consumed in a more polite manner which is not uncivil to those adversely affected?

[KnaveRupe]

36. Chewing Tobacco!

oh, sure, it's gross, but you can't really complain about the health risks of second hand spit!!

;)

[mmonk]

71. Give someone time

they will come up with it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

76. disagree. You've never been

around my ex-husband. obviously. :rofl:

[Cats Against Frist]

118. It only needs one positive: free people enjoy it

all of your other arguments are arbitrary.

[zulchzulu]

39. You can still smoke outside...

It's a good time to reflect your intake of Benzene, Formaldehyde, Ammonia, Acetone, Carbon Monoxide, Arsenic and thousands of other chemicals that clean toilets, make for nail polish and act as an insecticide when you puff on your Cancer stick...which also stinks like a chimney and gives you yellow teeth and bad breath...

Save the stinky habit for outside. If you don't like bars, don't go to any.

[mmonk]

46. or drink at home

[SlavesandBulldozers]

59. easy there. . . there will be no logic in this argument.

in case you cant tell. ;)

[Jed Dilligan]

41. Eddie Izzard, I think it was

said the same thing: "What's next, are they going to ban drinking and talking as well?"

IMO smoking gets too much of the rap for poor American health, people could chain-smoke and be healthier nonetheless if the food wasn't poisoned. On the other hand, it's a nasty habit, and even though I smoke (strangely enough, only when I'm drinking) after two weeks in Europe I was beginning to appreciate CA's smoking ban. If you want a smoke-free environment in Europe, you go to a museum--yet you don't see disabled people everywhere like in the states.

[DBoon]

51. Keep the alcohol in bars

just ban people.

[mmonk]

66. Problem solved

[Canuckistanian]

57. Damn, that Carrie Nation is HOT!

Dude, you got her IM?

[Cascadian]

60. No. Sorry.

She has not been online since 1911. I believed she died during that time.


John

[Maru Kitteh]

63. When you can personally insure that your Pavlov stick

will cause no other person discomfort or harm I will be perfectly willing to shelve my beer for a nice glass of ice water while listening to the band in peace and health - together.

Why should anyone suffer the poor decision skills of others just to hear a good band live? Why, as a matter of fact should the band and employees suffer for the addictions of weak people?

[Stephist]

68. Your need for beer isn't a weakness?

I am sure am glad your beer has never caused anybody discomfort or harm.

When was the last time a cop was talking to a woman with blood running down her nose and she said " he became violent after he had a few too many Marlboros?"

Damn non-smokers are holier than thou.

[Maru Kitteh]

81. See, I don't really need the beer. I go for weeks and even months

without it. That's why I threw in the ice water. Just as good. Tell me about the last time you realized it had been over two months since you had a Pavlov cancer stick. . . . . . . . ready? . . . . . . ........ GO!

[Stephist]

89. it's been 10 years at least since I have had a cigarette...

I don't like them. To me they are like smoking air. I do have a 1-3 cigars a week and I often go a week or two with out one. I use to smoke a cigar a day but I have cut back.. for personal and financial reasons. Thanks for asking.

Plus, and you may not want to hear this, not only do I personally make it a point to not smoke around people but I have three cats a dog that I won't smoke around either.

I know that we weak ass losers don't usually think about things like that.

[Maru Kitteh]

107. Then you are most of the way there

You know those people and kids love you.

It was my dad that made me quit. No living creature should die that way.

Peace and best of luck to you.

[tyedyeto]

70. Statistically...what are the odds of dying from a ....

drunk drive hitting your car vs. second hand smoke? Who is up to that challenge?

My bet would be on the drunk driver but I'm often wrong when I bet.

[mondo joe]

75. They can both be illegal. :-)

No need to choose only one.

[tyedyeto]

84. I want to know both of the statistics...

What are your chances of being killed by a drunk driver and what are the chances of you dying from 2nd hand smoke. Let me know when you find out.

[mondo joe]

85. If you want to know the statistics, it falls to you to do the research.

Especially since the statistic is not relevant to the legality.

Tell me, what do you think your chances of being killed as a result of asbestos in your home as compared to being killed by a drunk driver?

[tyedyeto]

87. Asbestos was not being discussed, why bring it up?

It was 2nd had smoke vs. drunk drivers.

I still claim I'm more likely to die because of a drunk than any 2nd hand smoke.

[mondo joe]

88. Because it's another illegal toxin.

Does the statistical threat relative to drunk driving matter?

[tyedyeto]

93. It does when people claim it's killing people

Show me how many people have died from it.

I know asbestos kills. My great uncle died of asbestosis in the 80's.

This thread's origional statement was how drunk drivers kill people. Then others chimed in about how 2nd hand smoke kills. I want to know my chances either way. Are you arguing for arguments sake or do you have the stats to back up your assertions?

[mondo joe]

95. Drunk driving isn't the baseline of risk.

And no one has denied that drunk driving is a hazard.

Does second hand smoke need to be statistically more dangerous to be a hazard?

[tyedyeto]

99. There are many dangers in society today

So, let's ban everything that has any element of danger to it. Even that which we're not really sure of today but tomorrow a study might come out which says it's dangerous to your health and safety. Take the case of the woman who died recently from kissing someone who had eaten peanuts. Shall we ban all nuts because someone could die from them? Let's ban all lighter fluids for BBQ's because we all 'know' there is still some of the residue left on the briquets and then you eat the meat which is contaminated. Ban baseball because you could get hit on the head by a foul ball. Where do the bannings stop?

[mondo joe]

100. Ban everything dangerous? A funny proposal - fortunately it's only you

and not a widespread notion. :-)

Where does the banning stop? I'd suggest at the harm you do to yourself as opposed to the harm you do to others.

If you're so opposed to banning dangers, shall we make drunk driving legal?

[tyedyeto]

104. No, I never said it should be legal

It's just where do the bannings stop?

So, only that which could be a danger to others should be legislated? What about seat belt laws? If I drive without mine, is that a danger to someone else? Yet, most, if not all, states have seat belt laws. Just one example.

I also don't advocate banning everything dangerous, that seemed to be your argument...the harm you do to others. I can be 'harmed' by the scents that others wear on their bodies but I don't want to ban them, I try to stay away from those situations.

[mondo joe]

112. Where the bannings stop is up to the electorate.

I can only give you my opinion - not that of the electorate.

[Cats Against Frist]

166. So then Tim Eyman's initiatives are all good, so long as the majority

says so?

[mondo joe]

173. I don't know where you got the word "good" from my post.

I haven't applied a value judgment.

It is simply the will of the electorate. Whether it is "good" or not depends on your opinion.

[Cats Against Frist]

182. Okay -- then you must be zen

Of course it's two different arguments, but if they pass a law that says it's OK to kill all people with red hair, I don't throw up my shoulders and go "Hmmm. That's the law. Guess it's OK." The question here is not whether how many people voted, or who voted. The question is -- is it right? AND, further, if not for the workplace angle, the law would clearly be unconstitutional, and there would be other avenues for it to be overturned.

[mondo joe]

204. What a silly example - unconstitutional laws passed are not the

same as constitutional laws passed.

[LincolnMcGrath]

96. The OP mentioned smoking bans.

[mmonk]

92. Little if the asbestos hasn't been disturbed.

What is the statistical data on dying from a car running in a closed garage?
(We can all play this game).

[mondo joe]

94. My question is why the statistical risk relative to drunk driving

is the question.

Is drunk driving the new baseline?

[mmonk]

97. Maybe because people can drink in establishments

such as bars (of course) and restaurants.

[mondo joe]

98. Yes, they can. And driving while intoxicated is illegal because of the

hazard it poses to others. Just as second hand smoke in public accommodations in WA state now is.

I still don't see why drunk driving is suggested as the baseline.

Drinking in and of itself is not a hazard to bystanders. Smoking is.

[mmonk]

102. So you see no hazards in drinking in bars

and the nearly 100% likelyhood those patrons will drive home (legal or not)? But second hand smoke is such a terror, they can't even smoke in a designated area or bar? I guess I don't buy the premise that if someone goes to a restaurant or bar for an hour or two and someone else is smoking, their health is in great jeopardy. I also think a person who doesn't want to go to a bar that allows smoking can make a choice to go to one that doesn't allow smoking. But a person hit by a drunk driver could not make the choice to not be hit.

[mondo joe]

103. People who drink MIGHT drive. If they smoke they DEFINITELY

expose bystanders to second hand smoke.

Outlawing the two are not mutuallly exclusive, and drunk driving is not the baseline of risk.

[mmonk]

105. The bystander still has a choice.

You can't control all risk is my point. I think banning smoking from all bars is excessive government control or micro-managing life for others. I smoke but choose not to smoke in restaurants (even those with smoking sections), I don't smoke in my car with kids, and I don't smoke in my house. I guess I have no choice on rules others make, even when they become a little over-zealous, but that's life.

[mondo joe]

111. No one has tried to control "all" risk. The people have voted to

minimize this one risk.

[mmonk]

119. As opposed to other risks

that are more popular.

[mondo joe]

121. Or as opposed to other risks that are limited to the person taking them.

For example, I don't care what you choose to ingest or do to your own body. If it were up to me it would pretty much all be legal.

[mmonk]

122. gee thanks

I have no problem with you injesting what you wish either, just don't drive.;-)

[mondo joe]

123. I agree - no drunk driving.

Anything else?

[mmonk]

131. I have no problem

with the healthcare community reducing smoking through its campaigns. I don't care if we're banned from smoking in bars and restaurants. I just don't buy occasional exposure to the proximity of someone smoking as being some big risk to that person. You might be able to produce a health problem in someone if you close the person up in a 10 x 10 room and expose them to the second hand smoke of a carton of cigarettes on a daily basis for several years.

[Kingshakabobo]

180. How come you don't smoke in the car with your kids???? n/t

[mmonk]

106. Also, take the drunk driving out of the equation.

you still have a greater chance of dying in a car wreck than you do from anyone's second hand smoke. Shall we ban people from driving cars?

[mondo joe]

113. The risks of driving are essential to driving and much is done legally

to minimize those risks.

Smoking is not essential to drink or dine in areas of public accommodation.

[mmonk]

115. Whatever

Ban us.

[mmonk]

178. and cars are not essential to travel

[mmonk]

86. I'll bet if tests are done on real subjects,

it will take longer to get the results on the second hand smoke.

[Zynx]

101. If it could be effectively done, I would support prohibition.

However, we have proven it can't. Alcohol is a devastating substance for many people and has destroyed many scores of thousands of lives through death, injury, or simply making people crippled alcoholics.

[Cats Against Frist]

116. People will jest, but you're spot on

The only reason that the smoking ban thing would even have any grounding in law is because the "workplace safety" argument finally stuck. Every other excuse "I'm allergic to smoke," or "your smoke bothers me," is a canard, because people can choose or not choose to patronize smoking establishments. Hence, the workplace argument is given primacy over all the other argument that would, and should, sensibly, allow for both non-smoking and smoking establishments.

All you have to do is come up with ONE element of your anti-alcohol example that can exhibit primacy over all other arguments in favor of drinking. Any one is as good as any other. The immediate response to your "position" is that "you can ban alcohol, when it gets in my lungs," but there are threats from alcohol, most notably ALCOHOLISM, which destroys the family and the person who is the alcoholic (trust me, I know), that affects the UNWILLING spouses and children of alcoholics. Alcoholics find haven in a bar, and commraderie, which helps the rationalization process. All you have to do is convince enough people that this has primacy over all the other possibilities, and you could easily ban alcohol. All it has to do is get enough traction, and enough totalitarians to get on board.

Think it can't happen? Well, it did. And it can happen to anything: sex, food, gay marriage, abortion. All you need is a tyrannical majority convince of the primacy of one element over all other arguments.

[mondo joe]

120. As you know, drinking directly impacts only the person drinking.

And drinking in annd of itself doesn't harm anyone else at all.

Excessive drinking combined with other factors (like driving) is another matter and one that is by and large illegal.

[trixie]

129. Oh please, alcohol is the root of most domestic abuse

Alcohol attacks every organ in your body including your skin and muscles.

I say stop this argument and lets outlaw the real culprit - fast food. I personally NEVER eat the crap but I hear some people actually feed that crap to their families and wonder why everyone is overweight. The toxins, the pseudo-meat etc.

[mondo joe]

132. No, domestic abusers are the rooot of domerstic abuse.

Since most people who drink do not engage in domestic abuse, there is no causal relationship.

Regarding fast food, I think it should be legal, just as I think all drugs should be provided you keeep them to the limits of your own body.

[Cats Against Frist]

144. But a correlative relationship is just as good as causal

in the arbitrary world. I would bet that MOST people who work in smoking environments do not contract lung cancer.

[mondo joe]

200. I don't know why you use the term "arbitrary world".

I don't know what you think it means.

[Cats Against Frist]

139. Wow, you missed my point, completely

The point was that there is no more a "right" to a smoke-free workplace, as there is a "right" to smoke, enumerated in the Constitution. You may think one is right, and the other is wrong, but it doesn't change how the Constitution views it. Some things that aren't enumerated, in the Constitution, however, become precedent. The only angle of precedent that the anti-smoking lobby could latch onto is the workplace angle, because of other workplace saftey laws. All other prohibitions are ridiculous, on their face, and the legislature or the supreme court would have grounds to overturn them, or throw them out, with or without a 67 percent ballot initiative.

The primacy of the workplace safety argument, and its precedent, in law, are what make these bans fly. This could just as easily happen with alcohol, with a zealous and totalitarian alcohol lobby. In fact, it has -- The Prohibition. And, it could happen again.

There are plenty of ill effects of alcohol that are not "illegal," per se, including, as I said, the effects of alcoholism on the children and spouses of alcoholics, lost workplace productivity, the money that is used to provide treatment to alcoholics -- and it is a lot. I've worked in social services, and the state pays for alcohol and drug rehab. Half the children who are on welfare probably wouldn't be, if it wasn't for alcohol and other drugs.

Any one of these reasons could find primacy, and grounding in law, with the right chain of precedent, and alcohol could be in the same boat as smoking. So could any other freedom that too many of us, obviously, take for granted.

[mondo joe]

143. I'm so worried about your slippery slope. What if they outlaw Christmas

next?

[Cats Against Frist]

150. Uh, it's not a slippery slope. We live in an authoritarian police state.

Or, haven't you noticed?

[mondo joe]

152. Because you can't smoke in bars in WA state?

Or because you can't sexually harrass your secretary? Or because you have to remove asbestos from your factory? Or because you're not alllowed to discriminate based on race? Or because you're required to list the contents of the food you produce on the package?

Where, in your opinion, did it cross over into being a police state?

[Cats Against Frist]

163. Pick one

When the death penalty was state-sanctioned. When drug interdiction was introduced. When the federal reserve was created. When the Patriot Act gutted the Bill of Rights. Every one of those people have "good reasons" for what they did, just like all the other authoritarians.

And, yes, this smoking ban shit is part of "authoritarian creep."

[mondo joe]

171. So the smoking ban = the Patriot Act? Oooooookay. n/t

[mmonk]

201. So you won't mind if people continue to smoke

once the ban is in place because its illegal (like driving and drinking). Whether they desist is beside point.

[mondo joe]

207. Why would I not mind? I mind drinking and driving?

Certainly some people will break the law just as all laws are sometimes broken.

[Bridget Burke]

136. The Poor Smokers & Those Fighting for a Christian Christmas....

The two most persecuted groups in today's USA.

Let's take a moment to shed a tear!

[mondo joe]

140. Yes, it's hard to split my time between depriving smokers of their civil

rights and my war on Christmas.

Especially at this time of year!

[Cats Against Frist]

142. Actually the smokers would be on the DIVERSITY end

The tyranny of the majority -- the smoke Nazis and the Christmas Nazis are the bedfellows.

[seabeyond]

193. damn you are smart

i have been enjoying your agrument, such an easy flow. thanks, was intellectually stimulating. lol lol breathe out.

time to play. i love that horrible ole christmas. things to do.

[Blue_Tires]

156. roger that

I don't drink anyways....once they start banning the women from bars, why even go?

[mmonk]

158. Protect all those healthy drinkers

from the dangers of occasional exposure to second hand smoke.

[Swede]

162. There is no such thing as secondhand drinking.

Employees and patrons need not worry about your use of it.

[mmonk]

164. True

Drinks for everyone.

[The Whiskey Priest]

167. Would you consider it secondhanding drinking

when your friend pukes on your shoes?

[mmonk]

176. I disagree

Pregnant women.

[Cats Against Frist]

185. And we cannot trust pregnant mothers to regulate themselves

and arresting a mother "ex posto facto" doesn't save the child from brain damage. The state must stop the production of all alcohol, because of the babies.

Seems like most of these kinds of laws are used to protect babies.

[rman]

191. There is such a thing as death or injury due to DUI,

alcohol related abuse, and there's the cost to society for taking care of alcoholics and other problems related to alcohol consumption.

I'm not saying those are valid reasons to ban alcohol, but to others, similar reasons are cited for a ban on smoking.
Along those same lines guns and video games should also be banned.
It would bring us a bit closer to a world where all risk and related costs has been eliminated, but it also is exceedingly restrictive and totalitarian.

It's the sort of legislation the RW is always pushing for, while claiming they are in favor is what they call "small government" and "personal responsibility".

The liberal thing to do is not to ban but to regulate: gun control, regulation of corporations, regulation of sales of video games, alcohol and tobacco. Consumption of tobacco in public places also can be regulated rather then banned.

[No Exit]

194. Betcha more people have died because of drunk people's mistakes

than have ever died from "second-hand smoke".

[mondo joe]

199. Is that the standard?

[No Exit]

210. Yes.

Staying alive is important.

[BoneDaddy]

192. Stay out of my body

I love the fucking hypocrite ex- drinkers, ex-druggies, ex- smokers, ex-fun folks who, because they were a total asshole when they were younger, now think it is their duty to lecture people who know how to live life in moderation.

If I want puritanical shit heads, I would go to the freeper boards. This "I am so scared of life so I am going to try and insulate myself from everything" mentality is merely one more excuse for someone to think they are better than someone else.

This type of crusade thinking is more indicative of the right than it is of the left.

Shut up... stay out of my body and what I choose to put into it. Go hang out in the freeper rooms.

[No Exit]

195. BEST. THREAD. TITLE. EVER.