GoddessDustyGold
Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
You're making an argument where there isn't one. You want to smoke in a smoking establishment? - I have no problem with that - as I've said on this thread and the other thread you attached a link to.
I think I have been trying to explain to you that this is not about "smoking establishments". There are no smoking establishments. They have been banned.
This is not about reasonable restrictions to allow for the reasonable comfort of society. It is about out and out banning, bit by bit.
Although I hate trying to split everything up with those pesky tags, I will do My best! Since one of the many statements that I see often, when smoking is discussed, either on a thread regarding smoking itself, or when it is being used as an excellent example of how bans can be put into place, such as this thread, I will take that paraphrased statement and I will use abortion as a potential ban. I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue, but it might hit home. Then again, it might not!
The statement is this in a paraphrased version.
"Your rights end when they directly affect my rights to life and health".
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
This is the same point I have been making, GoddessDustyGold. There are laws in place which stipulate where people can smoke.
The smokers who have tried to challenge this statement have used...
1) I want a place I can smoke
2) Non-smokers are controlling people concerned only for themselves.
Yes, I do want a place to smoke that is other than My home and car, which may also go away at some point in the fairly near future. Yes, non-smokers are concerned with themselves and the by products they feel (feel, not know) might be harmful to their health.
Abortion..."It is my body, and I have the right to choose."
I contend that it is no longer your body, exclusively, since it is now a vessel for life. Therefore , you have a moral obligation to not "murder" a growing life because it is not convenient at this point. Yet this is a legal option for women. In fact, it is available with government funding...i.e. My taxes. I am being forced, against My will, to support this practice, with My tax dollars. Just as non-smokers are incensed by the idea that they are being forced to expose themselves to second hand smoke unless they can legislate any possibility of it right out of existence. I would propose that the option for women should instead be to keep their legs closed or take the personal responsibility to prevent the possible pregnancy in the first place. Yes, birth control is not 100% effective, but abstinence is. Get enough Christian Fundamentalists to start raising holy hell, and this legal option to end a life may end up banned...again. These people are only thinking of themselves and their feelings. Yes? And they are only concerned about the unborn. They are protecting the rights of the unborn, whereas others may feel that this is not viable life, therefore it is silly to protect this. The right to choose trumps the right of the unborn life.
Remember that the practice of partial birth abortions has now been cut down. Is this the beginning of a new wave of limitations on when you can choose to abort?
quote:
The smokers who have tried to challenge this statement have not.
1) Explained how to keep their smoke out of my nose, except to state that their right to smoke trumps my right to eat dinner or be in a bar without dealing with an assault by a toxic substance (that I am allergic to, by the way) on my lung tissue, clothing, and skin.
Amazing to Me how many people are suddenly allergic or extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke. I hate to bring it up again, but why is all the information regarding other toxins such as exhaust funes being ignored consistently by the anti-smokers? If you compare the levels, the amount that smokers may put into the air, which quickly dissipates, is not even a drop in the bucket of what we breathe everyday. But, it seems, this is the drop that people can control without inconveniencing themselves. So they are bound and determined to control it. I am of a personal belief that much of this is psychological in nature. But, I agree, that is only My opinion. So, by all means, eat dinner at a non-smoking establishment, and go to a non-smoking bar. Oh wait...I forgot, you can go anywhere you please now, and be protected from My possibly harmful habit. Because I am the one who has no place to go out to eat. I do not even have the option of choosing a smoking restaurant. Or a smoking room on a smoking floor in a hotel. Or a smoking bar.
Abortion: Explain to Me why it is none of My business that women arbitrarily choose to abort babies when it is personally offensive to Me. I am personally affected by this and it hurts Me to the core. The babes cannot speak for themselves, so perhaps I would be allowed ot speak for them? Yet, The rights of the women trump the right of the unborn children.
Remember that the practice of partial birth abortions has now been cut down. Is this the beginning of a new wave of limitations on when you can choose to abort?
quote:
2) Explained how to keep their smoke out of the employees nose, except to state that their right to smoke trumps that person's right to have a job.
I have already stated that I am aware I can no longer smoke at My desk as work, or in a smoking area in a break room, or even on a nearby patio designated for such. It does not trump it. But it does apparently trump the right of the smoker to have any way to find a place to have a quick cigarette every 2 or 3 hours. However, this does not affect you, so you are all for it. Because, what if you accidentally breathe in the second hand smoke of a smoker because you choose to cut across the parking lot section that has a ramada and an ashtray? You should have that choice right? So I have no choice. I must protect you from this. Since I am not willing to do that on My own, it must now be put into law. You do not have any obligation to be polite and take another route if you are that sensitive to cigarette smoke. You should not even have to think about it. I am the one who is obligated to be polite to the extent that I no longer even light up until I am in My own car. That may go away soon! It is next on the agenda and already being discussed.
Before I left for England last summer, I found that there is, in fact, a smoking area in the international terminal by the gates. I could not even find it at first, and it was about 20 feet from where I was standing. My sister-in-law, a non-smoker (rabid non-smoker, that is) could not see or smell it either. It was a glassed in, but open at the top small area, and it was full of people sucking in their nicotime like mad. (Most of them had British or other European accents, by the way! *Smile*) There was some sort of filtering system in place, as there was not a speck of smoke exiting the area which was open at the top (walls about 6 feet high). It seems the technology is there. I am not saying it is cost effective, for I have no information on that, but it can be done. I have seen it. And I am sure it was there because people were embarking on long flights and it is the considerate provision made by the airport for those who might need to smoke prior to a long flight since they are now trapped in an airport for extended peiods of time, and then onto that long flight. And I am not asking for this to be placed in all restaurants or businesses. I am saying, leave the option open for freedom of choice. If private businesses want to provide a smoking area, or a patio, and their demographics show that they can make their profits while offering this option, then let the non-smokers boycott those establishments. No longer necessary, since that personal choice has been removed.
You are sickened by My smoking and the odors and possible physical harm it can do to you. Although I agree that you have a right to be offended by cigarette smoke, I do not believe this will kill you. Particularly in the minor wafting of the occasional smoke that may drift your way, if you get in the way of a smoker who is legally indulging in the very few diesgnated areas that are left.
Abortion: I find it morally repugnant and it sickens Me. I am sensitive to the fact that people have this option to walk into a clinic, and, often with My tax dollars, end a life. I believe this is a life. You do not. Your belief trumps the right of the unborn child to even have a life.
Remember that the practice of partial birth abortions has now been cut down. Is this the beginning of a new wave of limitations on when you can choose to abort?
quote:
3) Explained how the business is going to deal with lawsuits from employees who file suit against them to pay for their lung cancer from second-hand smoke, except to state that their right to smoke trumps the business owners right to maintain business insurance to protect their assets.
"This is a company that permits smoking in designated areas. If you are sensitive to cigarette smoke, or feel this may endanger your life, we do not encourage you to apply for a job here. Please go to a business that disallows any and all cigarette smoking anywhere on their premises. We will be happy to show you where our designated smoking areas are and how you may avoid these areas."
"If you choose to work for us, and we choose to hire you, all new hires. smokers or not, are required to sign a legal waiver. Since there is no definitive proof that any lung or heart disease you might eventually contract has anything to do with any possible but very limited amount of cigarette smoke you may be exposed to by working for this company, you will not have any legal recourse with regard to lawsuits. We are aware that in spite of the fact that there is no proof, juries vote on emotion and the assumption of deep pockets and are more than happy to had out huge awards for situations that cannot be proven".
Remember, Sinergy, you are not addressing the fact that you have also taken away the right of the business owner to decide if s/he wants to allow smoking in designated areas. Insurance companies? Laughable... They are aware that people are going to jump on any way they can to sue. It is the American way, after all! Remove the potential, and there is no problem. Waivers. Personal responsibility. Apply for a job there or don't. Everybody has a choice, and everybody makes their own personal decisions. Now companies no longer have a reasonable policy in place regarding smoking. They have been legislated into being, what I perceive to be unreasonable.
quote:
a Fascist dictatorship and the erosion and stripping away of everybodies rights. They fail to make the connection that my smelling their cigarette smoke in a bar is an erosion and stripping away (by them) of my personal rights.
Well, since you brought it up, let's talk about Fascism. From Wikipedia with the bold emphais and black underscoring Mine...
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, religious, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.[1][2][3]
There are numerous debates among scholars and other individuals regarding the nature of fascism and the kinds of political movements and governments that may accurately be called fascist. For example, the extent to which German Nazism may be considered a form of fascism is debated. Most scholars see fascism as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements.[4] In addition, some scholars see fascism as the radicalization of the center or as a populist revolt of the middle classes.[5][6][7][8] Fascist movements sometimes claim they represent a "Third Way between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism."[9]
Fascism has been defunct in the Western world as a major political ideology since the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II. There is considerable stigma attached to the name and to the concept, and it is not uncommon for people to label their political opponents (or authority figures in general) pejoratively as "fascists". However, a small number of openly fascist political groups continue to exist, such as the Italian Fiamma Tricolore.
I would subscribe to the areas I have bolded and replace "state" with the will of the mass movement, without any regard to the rights and comfort of the minority. Are you honestly trying to tell Me that this particular mass movement does not consider individual and other societal interests inferior to the preferences of the mass movement? What makes this movement better than the the corporate fascism so many love to tout? Is it because you claim it has nothing to do with the bottom line...i, e. money and profits? And maybe you should follow the money. This has been a fantastically successful marketing ploy under the guise of public health, when nothing, in spite of all the money for research has ever proven that smoking or second hand smoke is directly related to heart and lung disease and deaths. Statistics have been finagled and the mounting of a mass movement has been so successful that that the money has simply shifted from corporate profits realized fromthe sale of a legal product to tax dollars and private dollars funding continuing research that proves nothing. By all means, put out the information that this may be a health hazard. There are reasonable compromises. But the anit-smoking mass movement does not believe in compromise. It may take a while longer to completely finish the job, but they are absolutely determined to make it as impossible as they can for anyone to smoke anywhere. There are no choices for smokers, and there are no restrictions for non-smokers. Put into effect reasonable restrictions so that all have a comfort level and access to areas where there is either non-smoking or smoking. Don't take away the right of personal choice from individuals and private business owners so completely, and in every way possible, that we are now pending legislation that would effectively disallow smoking in all rental properties. And HOAs will misuse their power and begin to infiltrate private property. It is already happening. But it does not personally affect you, so you fail to see why this is wrong. Or maybe you do, in a very limited way. You say you don't care if people smoke in their homes, but I wonder if you would jump over to the side of smoking rights if it goes as far as limiting smoker's ability to smoke in their own homes. Not even a rental property. A hoem they have pruchased with their hard earned dollars. Would you? Or is it just another piece of the pie that doesn't affect you personally, so you will be apathetic and ignore it? Better that the substance just be made illegal and have it done with.
Abortion: I do not wish to consider the personal preferences to have a choice regarding abortion. Therefore, I am going to start a new mass movement which is in defense of all the unborn babies who cannot speak for themselves. After all, I do have definitive proof (which non-smokers do not regarding smoking and second hand smoke) that over 43 million lives have been lost since Roe v. Wade. This is not in question. Or is it? Many do not believe that it is life if it is not viable outside of the womb. Therefore it does not deserve the same respect or consideration and the rights of the pregant woman and her body trumps the right of the unborm child. I do not even wish to make allowances for the fact that there are certain cases wherein the Mother might be in danger of her life, and I do not want to consider a case of rape. I want to ban it all, everywhere and in every way. There is no room for any compromise.
No smoking anywhere = no abortion for any reason.
Okay, I told you his would be extreme, and I don't feel that way. Although I am on the side of the "right to life", I am not on the side of being completely insensitive to situations wherein this might be a responsible decision. But I am trying to make a point.
Remember that the practice of partial birth abortions has now been cut down. Is this the beginning of a new wave of limitations on when you can choose to abort?
quote:
The only conclusion I can come to from reading most of their justifications for their addiction is that the only person who should be afforded any rights is the addict, which seems odd to me.
Sinergy
Do you still have the same conclusion? I am not asking for unreasonable rights. I am not saying that My rights as a smoker trump your rights as a non-smoker. I am saying that I should have some reasonable options. The difference is in what you consider reasonable and what I consider reasonable. And I am not the exception to the rule regarding those nasty and rude smokers. I am asking the anti-smokers to get off the soap box and stop spouting the less than factual "the sky is falling and I am going to die if anyone smokes anywhere near me" , and be more sensitive to the fact that there are many, many smokers who have no problem with reasonable restrictions. We have adjusted to the fact that this is no longer a socially acceptable habit, and we do our best to be discreet and observe the laws. We do, however, have a problem with hitting a new wall everytime elections roll around and the mass movement jumps on the newest and most improved way to further stop/restrict smokers and, at the same time, saddle them with another sin tax.
Abortion: The only conclusion I can come to from reading most of their justifications for their "right to choose" is that the only person who should be afforded any rights is the pregnant woman, which seems odd to me.
Remember that the practice of partial birth abortions has now been cut down. Is this the beginning of a new wave of limitations on when you can choose to abort?
This has taken entirely too long, and I have been interrupted many times. Please cut a little slack if you feel that the cohesiveness is not all there.
Edit: I did have to edit for the tags, and I am still not sure if I got it right, but I am late for a meeting!
< Message edited by GoddessDustyGold -- 4/27/2007 12:03:35 PM >
_____________________________
Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom
|
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread