Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/21/04 06:35 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Im just curious, have you ever said that before this pack?

Back in the Regular's Lounge.

THANKYOU!!!!!!!!!! I am so mad, cause i have asthma, and smoking is even worse for me, so i am so mad when i go somewhere and people are smoking! i hate it, thankyou for bringing up this topic!

Smoking bothers some people. Perfume bothers others. Therefore should we make a law against perfume?

At 3/22/04 03:13 AM, Vowl wrote: Smoking bothers some people. Perfume bothers others. Therefore should we make a law against perfume?

Sounds reasonable. According to "One Minute Asthma: What You Need to Know" by Thomas F. Plaut, M.D. perfume can trigger an asthma attack. We need to stop these people from wearing stuff that is KNOWN to cause injuries to people.

If all smokers died tommorow, I'd be extremely happy.

ok I think this is degenerating. No point continuing this debate.

At 3/22/04 03:13 AM, Vowl wrote: Smoking bothers some people. Perfume bothers others. Therefore should we make a law against perfume?

Perfume doesn't cause Lung Cancer.

There trying there best to stop smoking in america... rasing prices and advertisements like the TRUTH or whatever there called.

At 3/22/04 12:34 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Perfume doesn't cause Lung Cancer.

It can cause severe allergic reactions among some people, and asthma sufferers can also be severely effected.

I know that when some tramp comes near me dowsed in crap, I have trouble breathing.

Well most restaurants I've been in lately with smoking sections, it's alot more excluded, like a whole seperate room, not just the other side of the dining area, so it's not that bad. Since I'm friends with smokers I tend to sympathize with them a bit.

Personally I'm more worried about smog cause by car exhaust.

At 3/22/04 02:47 PM, RandomFreak wrote: Well most restaurants I've been in lately with smoking sections, it's alot more excluded, like a whole seperate room, not just the other side of the dining area, so it's not that bad. Since I'm friends with smokers I tend to sympathize with them a bit.

I'm not complaining about those places. In some cities, smoking indoors is completely illegal, even in bars. And that is the issue that I'm debating.

At 3/22/04 12:34 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Perfume doesn't cause Lung Cancer.

everything causes cancer.

At 3/23/04 02:51 AM, Vowl wrote:

At 3/22/04 12:34 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Perfume doesn't cause Lung Cancer.

everything causes cancer.

Only in California, it's safe in other states.

At 3/23/04 02:56 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

At 3/23/04 02:51 AM, Vowl wrote:

At 3/22/04 12:34 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Perfume doesn't cause Lung Cancer.

everything causes cancer.

Only in California, it's safe in other states.

Wow. I can go back to sniffing my wonderful model glue.

At 3/18/04 09:39 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/18/04 09:21 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: In Hamilton the by-laws ban smoking in restraunts and bars etc, but many still allow these practices to continue.

Because they don't feel the laws are just.

Which they arent, health nuts trying to ruin others habits, ghey

At 3/21/04 06:29 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

And its just better to have people not smoke anyways.

wow lets enforce safety guys, that makes total sense, fuck freedom down with that old hat bullshit known as private property too, lets ban all cigs, its better for the people to do so...screw your faulty logic

At 3/23/04 03:38 AM, miket311 wrote:

At 3/21/04 06:29 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

And its just better to have people not smoke anyways.

wow lets enforce safety guys, that makes total sense, fuck freedom down with that old hat bullshit known as private property too, lets ban all cigs, its better for the people to do so...screw your faulty logic

Yeah you're right. I now realise how stupid I have been. People should be allowed to do anything in america, because its freedom! I should have the right to give my children cancer by smoking in their faces dammit! I should have the right to open a bar in which I permit underage sex and drinking and where I sell drugs, its MY BAR, MY RULES. I mean why the hell would I ever drive on the the right side of the road? I enjoy the scenery more on the left side, and ITS FREEDOM, ok! No one has the right to tell me on which side of the road I should drive. I mean, why the hell did we illegalise hard drugs anyways? Its not like they kill you instantly, it takes a couple years to fuck you up real good, that's plenty of time to enjoy them at their fullest. And like, FREEDOM. I can do what I want. I should be able to shoot people I don't like because I have freedom, and they should have the right to hunt down my kids and family for revenge, because its freedom!

You don't grasp the concept of freedom. You're a fucktard. You're like that moron in Bowling for Columbine who's all like "we have the right to bear arms!! right to bear arms!!!!!" and the Michael Moore asks him "so should you be able to have gray plutonim, nuclear weapons, stuff like that?" and then he goes "well that should be restricted!".
"oh, so you DO believe in some restriction!"
" YEAH! There are wackos out there!!!!"

you a moron. You can't draw lines logically. You can't debate this issue properly. You're like most everyone else in this thread who has just avoided every real point and come back to "freedom of private property" with no real arguments at all.

Its because of idiots like you that it took 10 years to enforce the wearing of seatbelts in cars, and its because of idiots like you that it took 15 years to make people stop smoking in classrooms and schools. You have no future vision.

At 3/23/04 06:13 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

Yeah you're right. I now realise how stupid I have been.

It's about time

I should have the right to open a bar in which I permit underage sex and drinking and where I sell drugs, its MY BAR, MY RULES.

Isn't underage sex and drinking illegal regardless of the location?

OH NO BAD ANALOGY BAD ANALOGY BAD ANALOGY!!!!!!!! OH SHIT, I'M GOING TO PULL A POXPOWER AND WHINE ENDLESSLY ABOUT HOW MUCH YOUR ANALOGIES SUCK. whine whine whine whine whine, I can't take your stupidity. you guys are so stupid.

I mean why the hell would I ever drive on the the right side of the road? I enjoy the scenery more on the left side, and ITS FREEDOM, ok!

If you own the road, then I guess that's your business. However, most roads are publicly owned.

No one has the right to tell me on which side of the road I should drive.

No one but the owner of the road.

I mean, why the hell did we illegalise hard drugs anyways? Its not like they kill you instantly, it takes a couple years to fuck you up real good, that's plenty of time to enjoy them at their fullest.

Good question, I used to think I was the owner of my own body. I don't see how the government can have a legitimate claim of ownership on my body.

And like, FREEDOM. I can do what I want. I should be able to shoot people I don't like because I have freedom, and they should have the right to hunt down my kids and family for revenge, because its freedom!

Hey, if it's all consentual then fair game. If someone tells you that they want you to shoot them... then go for it.

You don't grasp the concept of freedom. You're a fucktard. You're like that moron in Bowling for Columbine who's all like "we have the right to bear arms!! right to bear arms!!!!!" and the Michael Moore asks him "so should you be able to have gray plutonim, nuclear weapons, stuff like that?" and then he goes "well that should be restricted!".

I don't think you understand freedom. Freedom that can be taken back for any pissy excuse isn't freedom. Freedom requires responsibility, I'll admit, however, just because some people are not capable of being responsible, it gives no one the right to restrict the rights of others.

you a moron. You can't draw lines logically. You can't debate this issue properly. You're like most everyone else in this thread who has just avoided every real point and come back to "freedom of private property" with no real arguments at all.

Waa waa waa.. Cry for me. Ownership IS the issue.

Its because of idiots like you that it took 10 years to enforce the wearing of seatbelts in cars, and its because of idiots like you that it took 15 years to make people stop smoking in classrooms and schools. You have no future vision.

If the owners of a car don't want to wear a seatbelt, I don't think they should have to... however, if the person is on public property, then I guess the government has some say. Smoking in public schools is up to the government, I won't deny that, however, if a person wants to run a private school where teachers are allowed to smoke, and parents want to send their students there, then I don't see the problem.

Again as my example I will use masterbation. Say in a restraunt which is private property and the owner sets all the rules, what if he or she told their employees they could whack off in the kitchen area all they like. Would you guys have a problem with that?

I guess that would be okay in an ideal world, however, moving towards capitalism requires addtional infrastructure. See, in a completely lassiez faire economy, no government organization to ensure health standards would exist, therefore, private organizations would develop to increase consumer confidence. Similar to the better business bureau, organizations would inspect resturants to ensure that nothing disgusting is going on. If consumers were aware, and okay with the idea of the masturbating kitchen, then I guess there wouldn't be a problem.

At 3/23/04 07:00 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:
yakyakyakyakykaykay I'm a prarrot squawk squawk

.........
OK let's start the debate anew just for you.

first off, you need to admit that society as a whole would be better off if no one smoked.

if you can't admit that, there is no point going on.

I can admit that that is probably true. I do know that there are many reasons why one might not want to smoke. Furthermore, if no one smoked, social acceptance and networking wouldn't be issues either.

sure it would...

At 3/23/04 04:24 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I can admit that that is probably true. I do know that there are many reasons why one might not want to smoke. Furthermore, if no one smoked, social acceptance and networking wouldn't be issues either.

well its true. Moraly and socialy, we have no interest at all in smoking. That's a 100% sure and no one can argue with that.

my logic:

1. as a society, we have to strive for a better future

2. If you leave it up to individuals, they will smoke if they are under no pressure to stop, as they are addicted and cannot stop without an exceptionnaly strong will or moral support

3. We need to apply proper pressure so they do no longer smoke. We already started by taking out tobacco companies adds on tv, and by retricting the number of places people can smoke, like hospitals.

4. If we put in people's head ( might take 10-20 years) that its not ok to smoke in bars and restaurants, they will no longer do so.

5. Once we have taken out smoking in bars, we can move on further from there and make smoking gradually socially less acceptable until most people quit.

so in conclusion, wether its provate property or not, we have, as a society, an interest in not smoking anymore. Once these steps are achieved, maybe in 20-30 years, smoking will be no more than a bad dream in our history and we will have benefitted completely.

Thinking that smoking in bars should be allowed because they are a private place of business is short-sighted. No future vision at all.

At 3/23/04 04:57 PM, -poxpower- wrote: well its true. Moraly and socialy, we have no interest at all in smoking. That's a 100% sure and no one can argue with that.
my logic:

1. as a society, we have to strive for a better future

By that logic, suicide should be illegal also. I don't see why the good for society should be held as more important than the good for individuals. Part of being human is making choices. And when you make bad choices illegal, you take a little bit away from our humanity. I agree that it is wrong for someone to blow smoke into someones face in a public place, that's assault. But morally, I don't see how a person's business and their home are different. The only difference is that one of them is more accessable to strangers.

At 3/23/04 05:10 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

1. as a society, we have to strive for a better future

hum I'm pretty sure suicide is illegal. Which is funny.
OK, so if we all lived happily and healthy, we'd lose our humanity? I don't see how. You're stuck in that gay "humans make mistakes blabla perfect world would be boring because no wars blabla".

And we're not talking about anything but smoking here. STOP TRYING TO AVOID THE SUBJECT WITH ANALOGIES OK!!!!! TALK ABOUT SMOKING AND ONLY ABOUT SMOKING.

OK? Or else, I'll go suckup to the mods and admins to have your name permanently changed to Mister Evasion.

At 3/23/04 05:27 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

Mister Evasion.

ahahahaha! mister evasion...ahahah thats great

Suicide is illegal, but the good doctor didn't evade anything in that response. Did you stop reading after the suicide sentence?

At 3/23/04 06:24 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote: Suicide is illegal, but the good doctor didn't evade anything in that response. Did you stop reading after the suicide sentence?

yes I did, and he evaded my last 4 points. Which although are in logical order of importance, depend on each other. And why didn't YOU reply to them instead of just attacking me? What did that do?

He just won't reply point-by-point. He's been doing this for 3 pages now, he just picks the one point he can repeat "its private property" too and squawks away.