Lexington Smoking Ban Upheld

Post by **the lurkist** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:43 am

Morgan, you know I love your Mom.

Post by **tomdarch** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:42 am

It's really cool when your lung cancer spreads to your brain! It does great things to your personality. Just think how much fun your family will have trying to deal with you dying from lung cancer when you're acting all 'wacky' from your brain being scrambled! I just think about what it was like for my best friend's mom's mom (follow me here) to clean up her daughter's diarrhea as she was babbling semi-coherently during the last month or so of her life. Smoking is glamorous.

Ooops. I'm too serious sometimes when I post. Sorry about that.

Post by **ynot** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:50 am

Finally this argument is getting down to the truth. lurkist has it strait up.
Smoking is insidiously evil.

Post by **Thrax** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:43 pm

We live in a republic. We have a representative democracy. We choose OUR representives by voting. How many of you vote? If you didn't vote, shut the fuck up!

Post by **lordjim_2001** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:11 pm

Thrax wrote:If you didn't vote, shut the fuck up!

Word!

And if who you voted for someone who isn't doing a good job, then vote them out at the next election.

Post by **pigsteak** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:20 pm

amen thrax!

what's next..banning fast food? trad climbing because of its dangers? race car driving because of its "emissions"? Sprag would like that ban:)

Post by **MiaRock** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:24 pm

how about banning pork...

Post by **pigsteak** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:26 pm

i have this annoying tickle in the back of my throat...must be phlegm....

Post by **Christian** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:39 pm

concerning addiction: Idon't believe that some people "who really want to quit" can quit. They don't quit until the pain outweighs the pleasure. Also known as "bottoming out". With smokers the physiological damage occurs slowly and subtly so frequently by the time some smokers bottom out it is too latebecause of physiological damage is irreversible.
With drug addiction and alcoholism there are numerous opportunities for bottoming out before it is too late.

Post by **Uncle Big Green** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:53 pm

Spragwa wrote:It's actually one of my favorites and I have posted it on this bbs before. In this case, however, I stand firmly in favor of the ban. As I have stated before, I fight for my right to be free of second-hand smoke. It's inadequate for a smoker to blow it away from my face, smoke-eaters don't work and there's no such thing as a non-smoking section if people in the restaurant are smoking.

I fight for the rights of the property owner. Again, and again, and again - IT'S NOT YOUR PROPERTY. You don't have a 'right' to be there (and be 'free of second hand smoke') and if you don't like the obvious fact that there's smoke in an establishment, then don't go in there. No one is forcing you to go in there, so in no way are your rights violated. It's about consent between 2 or more parties. The owner consents to allowing smoking in his/her establishment and the patron consents to going into it under the given conditions.

Spragwa wrote: Second, to say that people being addicted is bunk and that it's a personal choice shows your ignorance more clearly than anything else that you have said. Will power and "firm" decisions do nothing to do with an inability to stop smoking. My mother raised four children, worked two jobs and went to school full time for the first seven years of my life yet cannot quit smoking. She doesn't lack will power or a desire to quit smoking. She is, however, incapable of quitting.

my mother had no problem quitting, but everyone is different. you know what everyone? who cares? this has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

Spragwa wrote: Finally, just because you don't agree with a premise does not make an argument irrational or irrelevant. In fact, so many people found it compelling that entire cities (Lexington Ky is NOT the first, just the most prominent..even compared to New York) have banned smoking in public places. In Lexington, we collectively fight for what we believe in, which includes the right to breath fresh air.

you forgot to add "for the children" in you banter. has someone been pumping smoke into your house or saturating the outdoors with it? your 'right to breath fresh air' has not been violated by property owners who allow smoking on their premises. you haven't been forced into or onto the premises by these owners, have you? no, you're fighting ('collectively' is a dangerous and ambiguous word as you're implying that everyone's on board with you) to control someone else's property because you have some notion that you're entitled to it, especially when they don't operate it the way you see fit. we've already covered 'might does not make right', etc, so no need to revisit that.

I'll address Tomdarch's drivel later.