1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Smoker's rights

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Drip, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. MartinEnigmatica

    MartinEnigmatica Active Member

    Uh, isn't that the same strategy employed by anti-abortion advocates?

    And I'm not re-posting this because I want to play gotcha or zing Zag. A few pages back someone posted a number of images of the effects of smoking -- very visceral stuff. Immediately that made me think of giant blown-up posters of aborted fetuses, and how the abortion argument is essentially flip-flopped with the smoking argument.
    It seems that Segment A argues that smoking should be banned for various reasons, while Segment B says that it's none of Segment A's damn business, people should be free to decide if they want to smoke, to a point.
    Then, some of Segment B might say that abortion should be banned for various reasons, while Segment A says it's none of Segment B's damn business, people should be free to decide if they want an abortion, to a point.
    Segment A being liberals, Segment B being conservatives.
    Now, obviously it's not directly parallel. Smoking effects others, at least in public places, in ways that abortion does not, and the "various reasons" are completely different in each case. I also imagine there's a lot of crossover between segments. It was just striking to me.
     
  2. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Just one man's observation: If you were right 1/100,000th as much as you declare yourself to be we'd all be waiting with baited breath for you to talk to us via a burning bush......

    Unfortunately for you, we just laugh at your ridiculous declarations and the fact that you are often reduced to "for the children" silliness because it is all you usually have left after you are thoroughly and utterly clown smacked by anyone and everyone who engages you in a debate......
     
  3. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Stalking because I didn't rise to whatever bait you left on the texting thread? Wow, that's bad even for you, Zag.

    Would you like to actually contribute something to the thread, or are you just here to make stuff up and cry because I walked away from you on the texting thread?

    And I am right about this one. Being around a smoker can be bad for your health. Being around an unhealthy eater is not.
     
  4. In California, there actually is a number you can call if you see somebody throw a cigarette butt out the window. I think you give the person's license plate number and they get a fine. The reasoning is cigarette butts have caused some of the wildfires.
     
  5. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    Wait, so which smoker is it whose rights need to be defended?
     
  6. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    I'm not going out of my way to smoke in a public park, but if I'm not allowed to, then my right to smoke is being infringed upon.
    Putting aside the issue of smoking in bars, I should be allowed to smoke in an open-air environment. The ETS issue is not there.
    I understand that, but I've also sat on trains with people whose perfume or cologne was bothersome. It's the same thing.
    The fact that it might be a bother to people shouldn't trump my choice.
     
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Smelling cologne or perfume can cause cancer or respiratory problems? Wow. Learn something new every day.
     
  8. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Sorry to burst your bubble but you didn't play "gotcha" with me -- I happen to think abortion should be legal.

    I must say, however, your attempts to tie the two issues together was quite impressive, well impressive in that you didn't spin yourself into the ground with all the twisting, turning and contorting you have to do in order to try, unsuccessfully by the way, to make a coherent point and a valid comparison.....

    Of course, while we are playing this little game, why do the same liberals who are always running around claiming their hair-brained ideas about needing the government to save us from ourselves and do so "to protect the children" have no problem supporting a practice which is nothing more than killing children?

    I mean, really, morally what is worse -- blowing second-hand smoke in an infant's face or a few hours or weeks or even months before he is ready to pop out of a womb sticking a suction machine into his momma's uterus and tearing him apart limb from limb, only to have to kill him with a hammer or something else when he comes out and is still alive?

    Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.............
     
  9. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    It can if you are allergic to them.
     
  10. Drip

    Drip Active Member

    I disagree. I do smoke in a public park. I'm outdoors and I'm not harming anyone. If I'm sitting in the park, in open air, reading a paper or enjoying a coke at my leisure, I don't think a non smoker has the right to bother me.
     
  11. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Wow.

    First, there's no such thing as "smoker's rights". That little bit of fantasy was dreamt up by the tobacco industry.

    Secondly, there's no "slippery slope" .

    Smoking bans are--as my good friend Marx would say--a historical inevitability, even in the bumfuck states.

    And if you took all the poison out of our industrially processed food, you'd have, guess what, more flavourful shit!
     
  12. Fly

    Fly Well-Known Member

    Jeff. Former Michigan State QB...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page