RunUO Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Banning smoking in movies
- Thread starter DuckyInMyTrucky
- Start date
- Status
Rosetta;709451 said:
The only unfortunate part of that conclusion is that you have yet to make me look wrong. I will be sure to be even more brutal when you succeed though, I promise!
Yes, shit! How did you know??
This is like the perfect time for Kirin-Man to jump in and get ultra-pissed. Someone call that ol' boy up. I need some serious berating. I've been a bad boy!
WarAngel;709450 said:Too huge to fit on camera. Sorry.
What about wide angle shots? No matter, it however is very demeaning and sexist to call a women a whore/slut no matter how you meant it. It would be like calling a black person a nigger no matter how you mean it, it is still very demeaning.
HellRazor
Knight
Coming in a little late, but I'm bored, so oh well. 
This is a flawed arguement. It basically says "Toner emissions are harmful. We don't ban copy machines. Therefore we shouldn't ban anything that is harmful!"
The overall impact of toner emissions on our society is nowhere near the same. I don't know what the statistics of smokers vs. non-smokers are, but someone mentioned 1 in 5 earlier, so let's use that and say 1 in 5 people smoke. In contrast, there isn't 1 in 5 people who own a fax or copy machine.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that (although potentially harmful) the overall health risk of toner emmissions is fairly inconsequential. I have worked in an office environment for over 25 years and have not encountered a single employee or retiree who is dying from cancer or other disease induced by toner emissions.
Not to mention that there are a whole bunch of other issues involved with smoking and smokers that make it a more complex issue than toner emissions (health concerns; violation of personal space; the smell; fax and copy machines are stationary and restricted to mostly office environments, while smokers are not; smoking in public and common areas; fax and copy machines actually produce something beneficial while smoking is a harmful act with no benefit to anyone except tobacco company employees; etc. etc.)
Toner emissions don't stink, stain my teeth, or make my clothes smell like shit either. And they don't start spewing their emissions at me in a restaurant while I am trying to enjoy a meal.
You're advocating that individual localities should have the right to enact their own anti-smoking laws. They have had this right all along.
But local governments never used this power before the federal government started enacting anti-smoking legislation. And whenever you have a situation that affects the individual rights and/or the health/welfare of the citizenry, and local governments and industry are either unable or unwilling to police it, then of course the government is going to enact legislation. This is true whether you are talking about cigarette smoking or factories dumping toxic wastes in our waterways. This is also why we have self regulating industries like the movie industry - the MPAA has movie ratings because they doen't want congress getting involved in policing their industry.
The only reason it took so long for anti-smoking legislation in the first place is that the Big Tobacco is a powerful industry, and there used to be (and still are, but to a lesser degree) a whole shitload of registered voters who were addicted to cigarettes. When you consider that, it was really pretty courageous for our government to start producing anti-smoking legislation under those conditions.
So far as laws being sensible, your elected officials wrote the laws. If you don't feel a law is sensible, you should contact them. Or vote for someone campaigning on a pro-smoker platform. (Only no one campaigns on that kind of platform because they would never be elected, and why is that)?
Non-smokers should be able to reasonably enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere in public places. Absolutely yes.
Note that I said "reasonably". I've made arguements elsewhere that smokers have rights too. The key thing is balance. We can allow people to smoke without them being a nuisance and/or health risk to people who DON'T smoke.
It sounds like you think that your rights as a smoker outweigh the rights of someone who doesn't smoke. Quite the contrary, if we were to put it on a scale, it rationally should tip against those who are taking an action that effects the rights of another person.
That's actually a terrible example. Because there are a whole lot of other issues related to the growth and sale of marijuana that go above and beyond the (largely debatable and extremely limited) health benefits.
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but at the same time, I acknowledge that it is a complex issue, even more complex than smoking and non-smoking because it can have a whole shitload of other influences and consequences for our society, economy, and health/welfare that smoking and non-smoking DON'T have.
I think we have a great and well balanced system. We need both state government AND federal government. If we didn't, we might still be living in a country where slavery was legalized and where women weren't allowed to vote.
Oh, come on. No one has said that the government needs to designate each smoking area.
What has been said is that there needs to be legislation that lays out certain conditions that protect the rights of both smokers and non-smokers.
Good God, I and many of my co-workers used to smoke in my office before I quit and before there were laws against it. And even I (in this more enlightened time that is not totally skewed towards smokers) can see now how that infringed on the rights of the people around me back then.
This sounds great in theory, but in practice it doesn't work well. Businesses are in the business of making money. If they can make more money by legally ignoring individual rights and health risks, they will. This has been proven time and time again throughout our history. There has ALWAYS been a need for legislation to protect individual citizens from businesses.
It's like telling a black guy in the 60's "go to a establishment that allows blacks". Not only should that guy NOT have to do that, there weren't that many alternatives.
Businesses who choose to allow smoking should be required to also accomodate non-smokers. That is equal and balanced protection for both smokers and non-smokers.
I haven't seen anyone advocating the banning of smoking "everywhere". But personally I feel it would be a great move for the common good of our country to ban cigarettes completely.
If selling heroin was legal, and 1 in 5 Americans were addicted to it, and it was an individual and public hazard to health with no benefits, and it was driving up health care costs and costing the lives of millions of people, wouldn't (and shouldn't) it be outlawed? I'm not sure why smoking should be any different. The only thing keeping cigarettes around is money and the people who are addicted to them. Even most smokers would agree that smoking isn't good for anyone. A lot of smokers would love to quit, but don't have the willpower or incentive.
Hell, ban cigarettes and legalize marijuana. If you're going to pollute your lungs you may as well get a buzz off of it.
Although outlawing cigarettes may happen someday, we won't see it in our lifetime.
Cigarettes are death. If you smoke your entire life and die of natural causes not related to smoking, consider yourself really really lucky.
It is the responsibility of ALL governments to provide for the health, welfare, and individual rights of its citizens. That's why we have labor laws and other legislation that affects private businesses.
Just because you choose to smoke doesn't give you the right to make other people around you "smoke" too. I don't want to go to a restaurant and have my meal ruined because some rude asshole decides to light up in the booth next to me. I don't want to stink because I have to walk through clouds of cigarette smoke in confined public places. I don't want the associated health risks of breathing your smoke.
Smokers who want to be able to smoke anywhere they want without restriction are selfish and inconsiderate.
bzk90;709249 said:
This is a flawed arguement. It basically says "Toner emissions are harmful. We don't ban copy machines. Therefore we shouldn't ban anything that is harmful!"
The overall impact of toner emissions on our society is nowhere near the same. I don't know what the statistics of smokers vs. non-smokers are, but someone mentioned 1 in 5 earlier, so let's use that and say 1 in 5 people smoke. In contrast, there isn't 1 in 5 people who own a fax or copy machine.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that (although potentially harmful) the overall health risk of toner emmissions is fairly inconsequential. I have worked in an office environment for over 25 years and have not encountered a single employee or retiree who is dying from cancer or other disease induced by toner emissions.
Not to mention that there are a whole bunch of other issues involved with smoking and smokers that make it a more complex issue than toner emissions (health concerns; violation of personal space; the smell; fax and copy machines are stationary and restricted to mostly office environments, while smokers are not; smoking in public and common areas; fax and copy machines actually produce something beneficial while smoking is a harmful act with no benefit to anyone except tobacco company employees; etc. etc.)
Toner emissions don't stink, stain my teeth, or make my clothes smell like shit either. And they don't start spewing their emissions at me in a restaurant while I am trying to enjoy a meal.
You're advocating that individual localities should have the right to enact their own anti-smoking laws. They have had this right all along.
But local governments never used this power before the federal government started enacting anti-smoking legislation. And whenever you have a situation that affects the individual rights and/or the health/welfare of the citizenry, and local governments and industry are either unable or unwilling to police it, then of course the government is going to enact legislation. This is true whether you are talking about cigarette smoking or factories dumping toxic wastes in our waterways. This is also why we have self regulating industries like the movie industry - the MPAA has movie ratings because they doen't want congress getting involved in policing their industry.
The only reason it took so long for anti-smoking legislation in the first place is that the Big Tobacco is a powerful industry, and there used to be (and still are, but to a lesser degree) a whole shitload of registered voters who were addicted to cigarettes. When you consider that, it was really pretty courageous for our government to start producing anti-smoking legislation under those conditions.
So far as laws being sensible, your elected officials wrote the laws. If you don't feel a law is sensible, you should contact them. Or vote for someone campaigning on a pro-smoker platform. (Only no one campaigns on that kind of platform because they would never be elected, and why is that)?
Non-smokers should be able to reasonably enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere in public places. Absolutely yes.
Note that I said "reasonably". I've made arguements elsewhere that smokers have rights too. The key thing is balance. We can allow people to smoke without them being a nuisance and/or health risk to people who DON'T smoke.
It sounds like you think that your rights as a smoker outweigh the rights of someone who doesn't smoke. Quite the contrary, if we were to put it on a scale, it rationally should tip against those who are taking an action that effects the rights of another person.
That's actually a terrible example. Because there are a whole lot of other issues related to the growth and sale of marijuana that go above and beyond the (largely debatable and extremely limited) health benefits.
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but at the same time, I acknowledge that it is a complex issue, even more complex than smoking and non-smoking because it can have a whole shitload of other influences and consequences for our society, economy, and health/welfare that smoking and non-smoking DON'T have.
I think we have a great and well balanced system. We need both state government AND federal government. If we didn't, we might still be living in a country where slavery was legalized and where women weren't allowed to vote.
Oh, come on. No one has said that the government needs to designate each smoking area.
What has been said is that there needs to be legislation that lays out certain conditions that protect the rights of both smokers and non-smokers.
Good God, I and many of my co-workers used to smoke in my office before I quit and before there were laws against it. And even I (in this more enlightened time that is not totally skewed towards smokers) can see now how that infringed on the rights of the people around me back then.
This sounds great in theory, but in practice it doesn't work well. Businesses are in the business of making money. If they can make more money by legally ignoring individual rights and health risks, they will. This has been proven time and time again throughout our history. There has ALWAYS been a need for legislation to protect individual citizens from businesses.
It's like telling a black guy in the 60's "go to a establishment that allows blacks". Not only should that guy NOT have to do that, there weren't that many alternatives.
Businesses who choose to allow smoking should be required to also accomodate non-smokers. That is equal and balanced protection for both smokers and non-smokers.
I haven't seen anyone advocating the banning of smoking "everywhere". But personally I feel it would be a great move for the common good of our country to ban cigarettes completely.
If selling heroin was legal, and 1 in 5 Americans were addicted to it, and it was an individual and public hazard to health with no benefits, and it was driving up health care costs and costing the lives of millions of people, wouldn't (and shouldn't) it be outlawed? I'm not sure why smoking should be any different. The only thing keeping cigarettes around is money and the people who are addicted to them. Even most smokers would agree that smoking isn't good for anyone. A lot of smokers would love to quit, but don't have the willpower or incentive.
Hell, ban cigarettes and legalize marijuana. If you're going to pollute your lungs you may as well get a buzz off of it.
Although outlawing cigarettes may happen someday, we won't see it in our lifetime.
Cigarettes are death. If you smoke your entire life and die of natural causes not related to smoking, consider yourself really really lucky.
It is the responsibility of ALL governments to provide for the health, welfare, and individual rights of its citizens. That's why we have labor laws and other legislation that affects private businesses.
Just because you choose to smoke doesn't give you the right to make other people around you "smoke" too. I don't want to go to a restaurant and have my meal ruined because some rude asshole decides to light up in the booth next to me. I don't want to stink because I have to walk through clouds of cigarette smoke in confined public places. I don't want the associated health risks of breathing your smoke.
Smokers who want to be able to smoke anywhere they want without restriction are selfish and inconsiderate.
HellRazor
Knight
bzk90;709244 said:
A 100% healthy environment is not achievable.
A reasonably healthy environment IS achievable.
There are many things that are in our control to achieve this. One of these things is to prevent people who are polluting their lungs from polluting the lungs of other people around them.
You'll need to back that arguement up because I ain't buying it. Toner emissions as a whole are nowhere near the hazard to public health in our society that smoking is.
Once a person opens a business that is open to the public it ceases to be "private". Every business has certain legal obligations to fulfill. One of those obligations is to provide a reasonably healthy and safe environment for its patrons.
Of COURSE there needs to be laws to protect people from each other. THAT'S THE ENTIRE REASON LAWS EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE!
The constitution establishes that the congress is responsible for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. It provides a legislative process for the passage of laws which is controlled by representatives elected from each state.
Please quote the portion of the constitution that has been violated? Surely such a matter should be brought before the Supreme Court immediately.
And counties are sometimes too close to an issue to see the bigger picture or the bigger impact on the country as a whole. For example, a state that had an economy reliant and built upon the cotton industry wasn't likely to be a strong advocate for the abolishment of slavery.
States aren't autonomous and were never intended to be autonomous.
HellRazor
Knight
bzk90;709255 said:
We're getting sidetracked on the smoking issue which is really unrelated to this. But I'll comment anyway.
State laws don't override federal laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the right to outlaw medicinal cannabis, thus subjecting all patients to federal prosecution even in states where the treatment is legalized.
Having said that, one of the great things about our democratic system is that it provides for multiple avenues for the voice of the people to be heard. When there is a separation like this between States and the Federal government it brings the entire issue into further light and invites review.
So collectively these State laws can make a huge difference in the long run. I think it's only a matter of time until the use of medicinal marijuana is legalized at the federal level.
Representatives DO represent the will of the people on the majority of issues. The people voted them into office. People who are dissatisfied with their representation can vote for someone else.
Sometimes YOUR individual interests may not be represented, but the power of the vote ensures that the representatives are speaking for the people. And if not, they are replaced by the people through the power of the vote that each citizen holds.
When an issue becomes big enough and important enough to the people, it will affect the platforms of politicians and decide who gets elected. If the issue doesn't influence that, than even if the majority of people don't like which way the issue is going, it just isn't important enough to the people in comparison with other issues.
Electing someone into office doesn't mean they agree with you on every issue, it means that you agree with them on the most important issues.
Personally I think that even if marijuana was legalized, the same smoking laws would apply. Or at least that would be my preference.
The health effects are different, but a lot of the issues are the same.
The constitution ITSELF is a broad document. Intentionally so. It wasn't intended to identify every issue that might occur throughout our history and assign responsibilities to each one. It was designed to provide a SYSTEM of government.
Because it is a broad document that isn't tied to individual issues, it is a TIMELESS document that can adapt to changes in attitudes and societal changes. That's why it has only required a small number of amendments throughout our history.
The congress is responsible to provide for the overall defense and welfare of the country. That's a broad statement, and it was intended to be a broad statement.
P.S. September 18th is Constitution Day!
Home - Constitution Day - Constitution Day
- Status