User Tag List

View Poll Results: do you support a public smoking ban?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, I support a smoking ban both indoors and outdoors

    17 22.08%
  • yes, I support a smoking ban, but only indoors

    32 41.56%
  • no, I do not support a smoking ban/keep things as they were

    28 36.36%
First 101819202122 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 212

Thread: smoking ban

  1. #191
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    First of all, I don't think that quote was ever posted by Pastor Martin Niem.
    To be honest I don't know who wrote it but the site I found it on had him cited as the authur.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Secondly, there's a law against rape. I guess that makes rapists oppressed.
    So who's going to speak out for the rapists? If we don’t, then that must be a bold step toward Fascist oppression, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Right, therefore it is logical for companies to be allowed to fire workers that smoke.

    You are saying that smoker's have a right not to be fired because they smoke. That right is in direct opposition of free association - an actual right. You are forcing a person, through a law, not to be able to excersie their at-will employment.


    You should be also allowed to fire people based on sex, race, disabilities then, right? I mean, that's the logical conclusion. You are, afterall, saying that any attack on a liberty should be resisted.
    I'm sorry when I talk about rights I mean unalienable rights, which are quite different than those that are given or restricted by governments and court systems. Maybe this is where the confusion is?

    Specifically the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.

    To further clarify, absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security--the right of personal liberty--and the right to acquire and enjoy property. The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase pursuit of happiness in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these unalienable rights, which would include smoking even if it were socially unacceptable.

    The punishment of a rapist would fall under this duty because the rape of an individual would directly conflict with the states duty to protect the victim’s individual right to pursue happiness. Making it illegal for a company to fire a person based on his or her off the job choices that do not affect the persons ability to do said job would fall under the same obligation.

    But there are some that do not believe that people do have unalienable rights and that all rights are granted or created by the government that oversee them. Of these people I certainly would not expect to see any Americans as unalienable rights are very important to the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

    It’s recognized in The Declaration Of Independence in order to protect the rights of individuals that you have to abolish any lawful rights someone or an entity has to take away the unalienable rights of others.


    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    You are not championing rights here, you are championing against a fundamental right - the right to have who you want working for you.
    I do believe I am championing rights. Albeit championing the rights of individuals and not government and or corporations. This could be because I believe the intent of my forefathers was to guarantee the individuals freedom not the freedom of some government/orginization/club/flock of sheep who only want the right to take away the rights of all others.

    Whose rights do you chose to fight for?

  2. #192
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samIam View Post
    I'm sorry when I talk about rights I mean unalienable rights, which are quite different than those that are given or restricted by governments and court systems. Maybe this is where the confusion is?
    No, I am using the exact same rights as you are. Freedom of association has been supported in the First Amendment in the United States and maintained by the Supreme court. It has certain conditions (Race, Sex and so forth) imposed upon it, which you are elevating smoking to.

    I say that two men can agree to work together, or not together, for any reason. You say that there are specific things that should not be allowed to be a reason for them to stop working together.

    So simple question: Should a employer be allowed to let go of an employee for any reason they wish? As such, do you believe that the employer has the same rights as an employee - the same right to free association? No corporation, no government... just two people agreeing to work together. Without a contract, can either one just not walk away?

    I do believe I am championing rights. Albeit championing the rights of individuals and not government and or corporations.
    Corporations and governments have no rights (although corporations exist almost as individuals). The point being that a business owner has the right to end employment for any reason at any time because it is only a mutual agreement that the employer and employee work together. Either can walk away for any reason at any time - this is the natural right. Anything else invokes slavery of one over the other - the forced payment for services not desired, or the forced work when payment is not desired.

    You are saying that it is not right or fair that a person can be fired for smoking, therefore limiting the right of the business owner to withdraw from the mutual agreement. You are taking away a right from the business owner, but not from the worker.

    Whose rights do you chose to fight for?
    I believe in an entirely different approach. My point here is that you are being contradictory in your own belief system.

  3. #193
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    No, I am using the exact same rights as you are. Freedom of association has been supported in the First Amendment in the United States and maintained by the Supreme court. It has certain conditions (Race, Sex and so forth) imposed upon it, which you are elevating smoking to.
    Yes I am. If you believe that all people have the inalienable right to pursue happiness then whether or not that happiness is found in engaging in sexual intercourse with the same sex or in smoking a cigarette is irrelevant. Unless you feel like inalienable rights are negotiable?

    The reason gays, handicapped people, obese people etc etc.. have to continue to fight for their rights is because people just don't get it. Society as a whole wants or think rights should only be given to those that fit societies perception of right or wrong, good or bad, sin or not sin. There was a time where the firing of people for these things were accepted and thought just. This is the same process of irresponsible thought that continues to plague society as a whole. This kind of thought can be paraphrased as "I don't like it. It bothers me...whaaaaaaaaaa. Ban it". Usually no more thought than that is given.

    I say that two men can agree to work together, or not together, for any reason.
    From what you have written it seems as though you would agree with the stipulation that the reason is one that society believes is unjust such as racism, sexism or some other ism. That reason is acceptable as long as that reason has been agreed upon as now unacceptable behavior. And also reserve the right to change the ruling upon the next vote in which its acceptability shall be weighed and voted on by those sheep that have the loudest and most common voice. Any agreement or amendment to such a reason will be voted upon by those who agree unless those that agree heavily outnumber those that don't. In that case everyone will vote as long as those that agree out vote those that do not agree. If any such vote denies someone their inalienable rights then those rights are not that inalienable and thus have never been inalienable rights at all.


    Sorry but that just makes it too complicated and biased.


    So simple question: Should a employer be allowed to let go of an employee for any reason they wish?
    Yes as long as that reason does not infringe upon that persons inalienable rights. Come on it's not that complicated really. Look up the reason you cannot fire someone because that person is gay. Apply the same principles to smoking; realize that they are both inalienable rights. Understand that it's wrong and unacceptable to try and take away inalienable rights even if society does not yet understand what an inalienable right is. It seems so simple to me I can't figure out why it is so complicated for some.


    As such, do you believe that the employer has the same rights as an employee - the same right to free association?
    See answer above.

    The point being that a business owner has the right to end employment for any reason....
    Except those reasons society believes is unjust such as racism, sexism or some other ism that has been agreed upon as now unacceptable behavior.

    *disclaimer*
    Society reserves the right to change the ruling upon the next vote for which its acceptability shall be weighed and voted on by those sheep that have the loudest and most common voice. If the reason is still deemed unacceptable and certain members of society agree with said sheep then society will continue to deem it as an unacceptable reason unless the sheep and agreeable members of society changes its singular mind. If at any time the sheep and or society changes their singular mind it may have another vote on the reason if the collective voice of the sheep has changed tone.


    You are saying that it is not right or fair that a person can be fired for smoking, therefore limiting the right of the business owner to withdraw from the mutual agreement. You are taking away a right from the business owner, but not from the worker.
    Yes, I'm saying that the employer should not be able to fire someone for exercising his or her inalienable rights. I'm not taking away the rights of a business owner I'm insuring the rights of everyone.

    I believe in an entirely different approach. My point here is that you are being contradictory in your own belief system.
    No..I think you're mistaking.

  4. #194
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    I believe you may have been misled about the definition of "inalienable," samIam.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  5. #195
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I believe you may have been misled about the definition of "inalienable," samIam.
    inalienable

    adjective
    1. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" [ant: alienable]
    2. not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right" [syn: unforfeitable
    3. Rights Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: "All of them . . . claim unalienable dignity as individuals" (Garrison Keillor).


    such as the right to smoke, the right to be gay, the right to be happy.. etc... etc... etc...

    There are many that I have not even thought of and or have no use for but they still exist. Being gay at one time did not seem to society as being an inalienable right but has since been determined to be so. Smoking is now being ignored as an inalienable right.

  6. #196
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samIam View Post
    Yes I am. If you believe that all people have the inalienable right to pursue happiness then whether or not that happiness is found in engaging in sexual intercourse with the same sex or in smoking a cigarette is irrelevant. Unless you feel like inalienable rights are negotiable?
    Everyone is allowed to, or should be allowed, until it impacts on others.

    Yes as long as that reason does not infringe upon that persons inalienable rights. Come on it's not that complicated really. Look up the reason you cannot fire someone because that person is gay. Apply the same principles to smoking; realize that they are both inalienable rights.
    Smoking as an inalienable right? Well, even if it was, which it isn't, the point here is that you are forcing someone to employ someone they do not want to employ. This is a distinct inalienable right violation.

    Here's the difference;

    1) Worker loses job because he smokes.
    - No right violation; a) Job is not a right, it is a private agreement between two parties, b) no force was used

    2) Employer does not wish to hire smokers, but government says that cannot be considered;
    - right violation; a) the right to chose who they wish to work with is compromised, b) force was used to ensure compliance

    Yes, I'm saying that the employer should not be able to fire someone for exercising his or her inalienable rights. I'm not taking away the rights of a business owner I'm insuring the rights of everyone.
    Then you have taken away the employer's right to chose who we works for. That is an inalienable right.

    You are fighting for the equalisation of rights and justifying the "negotiation" of these rights to give special rights to minorities (such as sex, race, sexual preference and smoking).

    See, inalienable rights are about an individual being sovereign. You have reduced the employer's ability to make his own decisions through force (law). All humans have equal rights, but you wish to remove the employer's right to associate and hire based on your own preferences.

    I actually have no problem with this - but be clear on it. You are asking the government to step into a private relationship between two people and tell them what they can or cannot do.

  7. #197
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samIam View Post
    inalienable

    adjective
    1. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" [ant: alienable]
    2. not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right" [syn: unforfeitable
    3. Rights Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: "All of them . . . claim unalienable dignity as individuals" (Garrison Keillor).


    such as the right to smoke, the right to be gay, the right to be happy.. etc... etc... etc...
    You putting it in a list of inalienable rights doesn't make it one.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  8. #198
    Senior Member Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    613

    Default

    no, I do not support a smoking ban/keep things as they were

    All establishments should use their own discretion like Lee & LucrativeSid said.

  9. #199
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    You putting it in a list of inalienable rights doesn't make it one.
    Smoking as an inalienable right? Well, even if it was, which it isn't,
    sorry another long post.


    I see this will go nowhere until I defend smoking as an inalienable right.

    An inalienable right is one of those idealic concepts made notable in the Declaration of Independence. It is the assumption of Sovereignty by each and every individual who is willing to accept the responsibility for such an exalted office. I.e., being a human being.
    But what does Sovereignty mean? It means the quality or authority of being independent and in charge of the conditions you live under.

    In adition to the above definition inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights and are often refered to as such. Since this is the case we need to also look at what is commonly excepted definition of natural rights.

    natural rights: These are rights that are universal in scope and binding on human behavior, much like the physical laws of nature. The 17th century philosopher John Locke’s commonly accepted definition of natural rights states that natural rights are those rights enjoyed by prehistoric humans in their original "state of nature," before humans began forming complex societies. Furthermore, natural law obligates that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions." This is an important concept to understand when considering what is an inalienable right and what is not.

    If you notice that none of the definitions include any such phrase as “Must be important”, “must be healthy”, “Must be socially acceptable” or “Is only true if the sheep allow it.” From these facts and definitions it’s easy to understand the differences between rights and privileges. Most people confuse the two.

    Most people would think of smoking as a privilege and not a right. Although they themselves may not consciously stick either label on smoking they will treat smoking and view smoking in a manner consistent with that person’s view of rights and privileges.

    These definitions can be applied to distinguish between a right being an inalienable right or not. Is religious freedom an inalienable right? Well let’s put it to the test.

    Does it pass the freedom of prehistoric man test? In other words is this something that was enjoyed by prehistoric humans. Yes.

    Does it interfere with anyone’s authority of being independent and in charge of the conditions they live under? No.

    Religious freedom does pass the test and qualifies as an inalienable right.

    Same is true for race, color, creed and sexual preference. They all pass the same test and as a result are deemed as inalienable rights and are afforded protection against discrimination and unlawful fireing.

    If you were to have to categorize smoking by the above definitions as either an inalienable right or not you would have to consider that it is in fact an inalienable right.
    Apply the same tests and it passes. That is the basis for which I can consider smoking an inalienable right.
    If I am wrong please explain your reasoning for not including it as an inalienable right.

  10. #200
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samIam View Post
    Same is true for race, color, creed and sexual preference. They all pass the same test and as a result are deemed as inalienable rights and are afforded protection against discrimination and unlawful fireing.
    Just so you know, none of those are inalienable rights. They are protections on existing inalienable rights insured by the government (ie: by humans).

    There are only two inalienable rights - the right to life and the right to liberty. The right to life states that you should be free of violence and harm - that you cannot harm and other cannot harm you. Liberty refers to the right not be forced to act, that we have free will and can act in accordance with it. In other words, you do not have the right to force someone to do anything they do not wish to do... that an agreement must be made between people. This can be extended and assumed that you have the right to act so long as it does not impact on others... but then we get into difficult situations of private property rights and all that.

    Those are the core inalienable rights - rights that are intrinsic to being human.

    Smoking doesn't even begin to fit in there. Neither does race, sex or anything else... because it doesn't discriminate against the type of human to start with. Smoking is not a part of being "human" in any way. No action is protected under these rights, just as there is no right to employment, no right to smoke, no right to deal drugs and no right to ownership of any and all items.

    So, to be clear - you defend your stance with "sheep" and other rhetoric... but you are championing government intervention in order to protect a non-right. Specifically, you wish to decrease liberty by telling people who they can and cannot associate and work with. You are not protecting the rights of the smokers at all - they are allowed to smoke where it does not impact on others. Instead, you are allowing their choices to impact on others and then limiting what others can do about it.

    As far as the inalienable rights argument goes, it is quite contrary to what you are claiming.

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. Smoking Ban
    By WildCard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 05-02-2011, 12:33 PM
  3. Smoking ban decreases heart attacks
    By burymecloser in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 03:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO