[Rictor]

Well, we would be all those people in this thread who do not agree with Kazan. That would be me, 101010, Venom and Lonestar. I didn't mean it as we (everyone here), I meant it as we (all those who disagree and will continue to disagree).

And I said that human rights, like everything else, should be obeyed within reason. As I've said before, there are more and less important human rights, as well as degrees of infringement. Murdering 50,000 people is not the same as smoking a cigarette in your own home, despite the fact that they are both in theory human rights violations.

[Fineus]

I'm not sure that's what is being said - by all means smoke in your own home. I've no problem with that. Also, if I come to your home then I accept that you smoke - its your home, you can do what you like there so long as it's within the law (at least that's the theory).

But step outside your property and into a public place, and then smoke next to me - you're affecting me. This can happen to a varying degree - for instance one man smoking a cigarette who's upwind of me will probably not affect me much. But in a busy pub with 20+ smoking people in there and poor ventilation? Well that's going to make me cough, give me a headache and make my eyes hurt (this happens to me, it sucks).

I'd say that was a personal infringement... indeed it's been proven that smoking can kill you (or at least it doesnt do you any favours).
Murdering is illegal.
Passive smoking can kill you.
My mother smokes, but its my parents house I live in so I live with that.
But it still means I'm being harmed. I endure it because I love my parents but thats it. Anyone else I would - from the premises above - say would be killing me in some small amount.

I'm not asking that a smoker be locked away for murder. But I am saying that nobody should have to endure the affects of smoke that they did not choose to smoke themselves - not if they don't want to. But strangely it's being claimed that I am being rude for asking smokers not to smoke around me because of the harm it does to me?

Odd indeed.

[Kazan]

Rictor's all for human rights, except when he disagrees with them.   How hypocritical Rictor - you criticize the US for not respecting civil and human rights - and then when an american promotes them you disagree with him

you cannot have it both ways


The reason why with smoke you cannot differentiate between public and private properties is because they are not isolated from each other in terms of air exchange - they exchange air freely, and therefore the toxin exchanges freely between them.


"Human rights in moderation" - ok, we're going to going to human rights in moderation let's have the right to religious freedom "in moderation" so let's forbid: christianity [all forms incl catholicism for those that don't include it], islam, scientology, baha'i, oh yeah judaism since they mandate violating a child's right to bodily integrity (circumcision).. that's good for now.. we've got that right in moderation for now

how about the right to do things to your own body in moderation? Ban smoking, eating mcdonalds, and the atkins diet, and naturally keep al current illegal drugs illegal.... ok we've got that right in moderation for now


How about your right not to be killed by others?  Oh... I hereby grand myself, my friend chris, and a couple other friends authorization to kill people - since we're only having this right in moderation.


oh.. the right to free speech.. in moderation? You cannot critize me, speak negatively about any action I do


......

Is my point construed yet?

[Stunaep]

Ya know, I've never understood why people need to stimulate themselves with pshycotropical substances (sp?). They are about as much a cop-out, as using medical 'aids' in sports. I can somewhat understand alchohol, since it's actually good for the blood circulation in small amounts, and doesn't do much harm when consumed moderately. But tobacco, which doesn't have any pleasant side-effects, (I'm sure one can ease stress with a lot less unhealthy methods), and ****load of negative ones, that's one of the more stupid legal drugs out there.

For the record, I don't smoke not tobacco, nor anything more illegal.

[Rictor]

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word moderation Kazan. What you have just shown are examples of  completely violating human rights, not respecting them in moderation. Its almost 180* from what I was talking about.

As I said, there are degrees of violating them. What you want is 100% or 0% on everything in life. It doesn't work that way, human are falliable, humans are emotional etc. Here is an example:

You have the right to not be harmed physically by other people. When someone kills you, they are in gross violation of that right. When they come up to you and gently tap you on the shoulder, they are violating that right, but only to a miniscule degree. It is insane to judge murderers and shoulder-tapper the same way.

Similarly, when someone comes up to you and inject you with cyanide, they are violating your right to not be poisoned. When someone smokes a cigarette in their house, which you happen to be walking past, they also violating your right not to be poisoned, but to a much lesser degree.

You get it? Society is already protecting non-smokers to a very large degree. However, you can not demand total protection, since that would mean that someone living 5km away from you could not smoke a cigarette in order to protect your human rights,

_______

Thunder: I pretty much agree with you. Reasonable measure should  be taken to protect non-smokers. This means no smoking in public pleaces without an area for non-smokers, this also means no smoking in several public places at all etc etc.

If you walk in to a bar, that is private property and they are under no obligation to let you in if you do not comply with their rules. One of these rules is (in most cases) that people can smoke. If you do not want to be exposed to smoke, don't go to the bar. Or, go to the non-smoking section of the bar, where you will be more or less out of harms way.

I'm not protecting assholes who intentionally blow smoke in your face to piss you off. I'm protecting people who simply want to live their lives while smoking, and are alreadt taking reasonable measures to protect non-smokers.

Maybe the laws are different in LimeyLand than over here. In Canada, you almost never have to be exposed to SHS if you choose not to.

[Kazan]

Rictor: no, you don't get it - Smoker X forcing their decision on Person Y consitutions a violation of Person Y's rights - plain and SIMPLE

that "rights in moderation" was just a failed attempt at trying to cover your hind end.  There is NO DIFFERENCE between public and private land when it comes to air pollutants - because air pollutants emitted on private land inevitably cross into public land, or some other indvidiauls private land.

Smoking has no positive effects (those perceived effects are purely placebic), and all negative effects, it poisons other people at extremely low (near zero ppm) thresholds, and it is universally condemned by every medical organization.   Sounds like more than reasonable justificant for a ban - you don't like it, TOUGH - we're not taking away a right, just a licenses that violates other peoples rights.

[Bobboau]

by the same logic though, one could ban any personal activity or choice.
I have never felt as though I have been forced to breath contaminated air from a smoker, and I am very unnearved at the idea about going into someone's home just becase they are doing undesirable activities, this sort of mentality can very easily be applied to justify persicuteing anyone.

I am very suportive of peoples rights to make the wrong choice.

[Rictor]

I'm fairly certain you don't read mine or anyone else's posts before replying. You just have a text document with various retorts and you just copy-paste them in. You're saying the same thing as before using slightly different language. You don't adapt your arguement when new  lines of dicussion are introduced, you just paste a generic repsone from your big list and expect others to be fooled.

Its quite amusing actually.

Bob:

[Kazan]

Bobboau: not really - you don't have to "Go into their home" to determine they're smoking, i can easily smell it from the public land - extremely easily.  The conditions in which someone smoking would make it so that nobody who doesn't want to be exposed wouldn't be, garauanteed, would require the kind of air filtration level 4 biohazard facitilies use, and the law would have to be extremely complex

in short: it's simplier to ban the stuff - how his banning tobacco any different from banning marijuana, it's not

(don't even start the marijauna argument - they're both the same bloddy thing just a different core incredient that you fools are after - they're both public health issues and therefore can be banned)

[TopAce]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
...
Passive smoking can kill you.
...

It is exaggeration. Your lounge may take some damage, but I doubt it could kill you even at long distance.

[Bobboau]

eh, you know I'm in favor of legaliseing marijauna as well...
don't use it myself though, people who smoak pot are tards, but that's there right, I don't smoak anything or drink or anything, but I have no problem with people who do.

and I can't tell if someone is smoaking unless I go into there house, and even then sometimes I can't (although useualy it's quite obvius)

[Kazan]

TopAce: all the leading medical association in the world would like to inform you that your full of it


Bobboau: you don't have a sensative enough nose, i do - ETS is damaging at any concentration above 0 ppm - guess what, you cannot even smell it at that level, it has to get much higher before you can smell it

[Bobboau]

you know what, light is harmfull, oxegen dameges you, and water kills thousands each year.

let's ban them.

[Shrike]

Cars, too.  Filthy things.

[Fineus]

We need oxygen to breath, water to live and cars to get from A to B conveniently.

Explain again what smoking does for your average non-smoker? I seem to have forgotten

[Rictor]

Explain what cars do for non-drivers? Or what meat does for vegans?

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Rictor
Explain what cars do for non-drivers?

They drive me around.

[vyper]

Cars benefit drivers tho, and company vehicles benefit the economy. Meat keeps the health of non-vegans up so they can interact as part of society with the vegans.

Smoking.... help me out here?

[Bobboau]

hey, meat perfict example, there's lots of evedence (most of it bull****, but I feel the same for a lot of the SHS stuff) that meat is a horable unhealthy material, and that raiseing livestock ruins the environment and things of that nature,
only nuts want to ban meat

[Rictor]

Smoking gives people a vice, which leads to a calmer mood and less stress. Everyone has a vice, whether you think you do or not.

Originally posted by Shrike
They drive me around.

They also pollute the air worse than all the cigarettes in the world combined.