NH Smoking Ban

sausage boy · Post by **sausage boy** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Caravan Ray wrote:
Denyer wrote:are you still allowed to ride motorcycles in bars?
Yes - but there is talk that the government wants to bring in laws to make full-face helmets mandatory in drive-thu motorcycle bars. It's the thin edge of the wedge, I tell you - the government-nanny-state gone mad! They'll be after the pig wrestling bars next.

They better not touch the pig wrestling bars. Its the only place some pigs can get work. There are some wild pigs out there who have been saved by working in pig wrestling bars.

I do hope Kevin Rudd gets in here. He'll make every bar install at least one stripper.

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:17 am

fodroy wrote:DRUNK POST HELL YES

Actually, not. I dont drink. Except, maybe on very rare occasions

Jefff wrote:So how do you know someone isn't just telling you to think all this bullshit?

Oh yeh. I didnt think of that, what with the media all supporting the bans.
Still, its my belief in rights of every individual that drive me to my conclusions, not anything Im told

Lunkhead wrote:Indeed, if you spent less time posting ignorant bullshit here and spent 10-20 minutes researching this specific topic you might discover that it was the tobacco companies who promoted the notion of framing the smoking ban debate as a matter of smokers' rights. For example:

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co ... t/17/3/306

So, you might think you're being clever and anti-establishment about this, but you're actually just being a tool.

Well obviously the tobbaco companies are gonna use the idea of smokers rights to help keep their profits up. Would you expect anything else.
However, I am not just a tool of the evil corps. I have a very high regard for personal rights and responsibilities. I truly believe in everyones rights.
I think that government has no place in legislating on matters of personal choice. Thats it. It aint their job.

Lunkhead wrote:Maybe you should stop wasting your anti-establishment ranting and paranoia on public smoking bans and start focusing them on the repeal of habeas corpus or something else that's real and important?

Actually, its not only smoking bans I rant about. Im equally likey to rant about the repeal of habeas corpus, NAFTA/APEC/EU or the evils of the Federal Reserve.
I frequently rant on many issues, here and in other forums. Its just that in this thread it would be stupid to bring up, say, building 7 or Martian global warming. This is a thread about smoking bans. And I oppose them.

Lunkhead wrote:
Me$$iah wrote:On the whole people are stupid.
I am struggling not to respond to this with an ad hominem attack... struggling...

Please ad hominem away. I stand by what I say

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:19 am

Puce wrote:Yeah yeah, I know, you didn't really break Godwin's law... but still.

hehe. As Im sure you're aware it would be impossible to break Godwin's law. One can only invoke the law. To break it would require an infintely long thread, and even then the law isnt broken. Just not invoked yet.

Hoblit wrote:You know who else wanted to ban motorcycles in bars?

HAHAHAHA.

You a funny guy.

Denyer · Post by **Denyer** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:36 am

Me$$iah wrote:
fodroy wrote:DRUNK POST HELL YES
Actually, not. I dont drink. Except, maybe on very rare occasions

wow you are so cool I am getting a boner

Post by **Lunkhead** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:27 am

Me$$iah wrote:I think that government has no place in legislating on matters of personal choice. Thats it. It aint their job.

What other matters are there, than matters of personal choice?

Don't people have an inalienable right to life, too? A right which is impinged upon by smokers exposing them unnecessarily to carcinogenic second hand smoke?

They might as well be carrying nuclear waste around with them, irradiating people nearby. Fortunately I think that's illegal, but maybe that's another area where you think the gov't shouldn't be telling people what to do?

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:37 am

What a silly analogy.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:55 am

ANYONE WHO'S A LIBERTARIAN PROBABLY THINKS ITS OKAY TO WALK AROUND WITH NUCLEAR WASTE

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:06 am

erik wrote:ANYONE WHO'S A LIBERTARIAN PROBABLY THINKS ITS OKAY TO WALK AROUND WITH NUCLEAR WASTE

Or, like, guns.

Jefff · Post by **Jefff** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:08 am

Me$$iah wrote:Still, its my belief in rights of every individual that drive me to my conclusions, not anything Im told

And I'm willing to take your word for that. Now if only you'd extend me the same courtesy.

Post by **Lunkhead** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:48 am

erik wrote:ANYONE WHO'S A LIBERTARIAN PROBABLY THINKS ITS OKAY TO WALK AROUND WITH NUCLEAR WASTE

Are you sure? Isn't that what an anarchist would think? I thought a libertarian might view that as a non-consensual use of force? I have a hard time telling anarchists and libertarians apart, frankly, so perhaps I've confused them here.

Also, why is it a silly analogy? I'm curious to hear your reasoning behind that statement, Luke.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:29 am

Lunkhead wrote:
erik wrote:ANYONE WHO'S A LIBERTARIAN PROBABLY THINKS ITS OKAY TO WALK AROUND WITH NUCLEAR WASTE
Are you sure? Isn't that what an anarchist would think? I thought a libertarian might view that as a non-consensual use of force? I have a hard time telling anarchists and libertarians apart, frankly, so perhaps I've confused them here.

I was poking fun at you for somehow connecting me$$iah's desire to have government stay out of personal matters with not caring about nuclear waste.

Post by **Lunkhead** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:46 am

Ah, I misunderstood your response, my bad. I actually wasn't trying to connect libertarianism with not caring about nuclear waste. I was trying to think of something that, like second hand smoke, can cause a health risk to people surrounding someone. I admit, it's not a great analogy, but radiation was the only thing I could think of that someone could give off that would risk the health of the people around them.

Jefff · Post by **Jefff** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:59 am

But you know... If Me$$iah is going to base his argument off of a statement like: "I think that government has no place in legislating on matters of personal choice" then it's worth figuring out what does and does not qualify as a matter of personal choice. What about transporting nuclear waste? What about child labor laws? Health codes?

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:03 pm

Sure, but if one is to argue that smoking is more of a matter of public safety than personal choice, should it be legal at all?

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:12 pm

erik wrote:Sure, but if one is to argue that smoking is more of a matter of public safety than personal choice, should it be legal at all?

NO.

Also, I'm in charge now. Thats a personal choice. Now everyone go out and get ice cream until it is brought to my attention that you can slip and fall on a melted pile of it...then at that time I'll have to outlaw it in the name of public safety.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:14 pm

I don't think I'm going to like being a Hoblitarian.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:25 pm

Hoblit wrote:Now everyone go out and get ice cream until it is brought to my attention that you can slip and fall on a melted pile of it...then at that time I'll have to outlaw it in the name of public safety.

Clint Eastwood outlawed ice cream on the streets of Carmel, CA when he was mayor.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:45 pm

I think that's the opposite of Godwin's Law. Like, the first person to mention Clint Eastwood wins, or something.

Anyway, remember way back when they banned smoking in bars and restaurants in NH? Well, here's a report from the field. It's been kind of nice to not come home stinking of smoke. The Lucky Dog in Plymouth is a much nicer bar to hang out in, actually. The difference there seems to be the most noticeable to me so far. As for business, it hasn't really affected things too much, since it's an across-the-board ban. Meaning, it's not like smokers can choose to go to another bar instead. Everyone's just learning to deal with it.

I gotta say I'm still nervous that a pandora's box has been left open, though. Would it be such a stretch for a group to now argue that drunk driving is a matter of public safety, so there should be no drinking outside of the home?

Jefff · Post by **Jefff** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:00 pm

Personally, I don't think there's a fool-proof way to decide that one thing is a matter of personal choice and some other thing is about public safety. There are degrees. Some things just have to be judgment calls, and that's why we vote.

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:15 pm

jimtyrrell wrote:I gotta say I'm still nervous that a pandora's box has been left open, though. Would it be such a stretch for a group to now argue that drunk driving is a matter of public safety, so there should be no drinking outside of the home?

Jefff wrote:Personally, I don't think there's a fool-proof way to decide that one thing is a matter of personal choice and some other thing is about public safety. There are degrees. Some things just have to be judgment calls, and that's why we vote.

This is what I was illustrating in Hoblitaria.

roymond wrote: Clint Eastwood outlawed ice cream on the streets of Carmel, CA when he was mayor.

I'm reading quite the opposite.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:30 pm

Me$$iah wrote:I think that government has no place in legislating on matters of personal choice. Thats it. It aint their job.

That is quite simply 100% incorect. From that point on your argument disappears.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:34 pm

jimtyrrell wrote:Would it be such a stretch for a group to now argue that drunk driving is a matter of public safety, so there should be no drinking outside of the home?

No - there should be a group to now argue that drunk driving is a matter of public safety, so there should be more public transport. Then we're addressing public health as well as climate change - while partying!