S.F. fires up two-pronged attack on smoking

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/16/8 | Heather Knight

[CSM]

From the article: “It’s government’s responsibility to protect people from obvious risks.”

In response you say, “I don’t impose myself on anyone else.”

Once again, you don’t even have the ability to comprehend the subject at hand. This is not about imposing yourself on anyone else, it is about government actions to restrict you from doing anything that could be considered a risk of harming yourself.

“Seems to me that you’re the guy that ought to be ashamed”

Why? Who on this earth is empowered to cast judgement on other worldly men? You sure have a god complex and I’m not surprised, it usually comes right along with those who have no actual core beliefs. Since they are god like they get to waver with society’s trends.

” a habit that makes you a pariah among educated people “

Thanks to the likes of you and this SF Director of Public Health. As I pointed out, your alignment is clear. Now, the same tools will be used to make pariah’s out of homeschoolers and practising christians. It’s already happening in Canada and the UK and it has already been attempted in California.

I would like to personally thank you for your alignemnt with those that have a very deep desire to eliminate freedom and destroy our Republic.

[CSM]

“You do not have the right to inflict it on anyone else.”

Who has claimed that right? As I have previously pointed out, this is not about a “right to smoke” or a “right to smoke free air.” It is simply about allowing the owner of the property to allow smoking or to only desire smoke free air. I have the ability to chose accordingly which private property I will enter upon invitation, why do you and the SF Director of Public Health lack such abilities?

[Chinstrap61a]

Wow. So you think that the reason we fought for our country - and I lost part of my right leg - was for "property rights"? No offense, but that's dumb. I wouldn't have donated a used fingernail - and certainly not all of the soldiers' and Marines', sailors' and aimen's lives - for somebody's property rights.

We have a country that is based on a consitution that is in turned based on individual rights. The old "property rights" system was controlled by titled landowners and was overthrown in part by our revolution. As individuals, we do control what goes on in our own spaces as is our individual right. The limiting factor is when our activities threaten or infringe on others. If I want to experiment with chemistry at home, things are fine. If I want to experiment with dangerous chemistry at home and the effects of my experiments could spread to my neighbors, I'm in the wrong.

We shouldn't need to have government intervene - if we are responsible members of our own community and control our own actions with respect to others.

Smokers didn't. Tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen, lung cancer is very lethal, and smokers routinely lit up next to nonsmokers every chance they had. If I had a nickle for every time some smoker lit up next to me at a restaurant, I could buy that restaurant by now. The tobacco addiction seems to cause smokers to be ostentatious and to take some pleasure in annoying others.

The issue that's causing "government" to take action isn't complaints by activist nonsmokers. It's the huge health care costs caused by smoking and the public smoking is the one area they can affect.

I sincerely hope that you have the toughness it would take to quit smoking if you can. I've known some few that can do it, but it's usually more than normal people can overcome. I still have the memory of one of my closet friends, smoking away, while she was dying of her cancer.

[CSM]

com·mu·nism

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
**************************
You need to do a lot of study of our history and a lot more study of our constitution. The bottom line is that when the government no longer respects the rights of property owners, then the government respects no rights. Property rights are tied directly to “The persuit of happiness” that our founding fathers spoke about.

Since you have continually ignored my very pointed question, I will ask you again. I have the ability to chose to not enter property where the owner has decided to offer a tobacco free environment, do you not have that same ability to chose to not enter private property where the owner has decided to allow tobacco use? I promise to not subject you to tobacco smoke on property that you own if you promise to not enter privately owned property that allows tobacco use. Can you live with that arrangement?

Oh, and once again you missed my point about the relation between property and war. I’m getting used to that. Why do they call an advancement of the front lines “gaining ground?” Could it be that you are overtaking property that was previously held by the enemy?

[Chinstrap61a]

"Oh, and once again you missed my point about the relation between property and war. I’m getting used to that. Why do they call an advancement of the front lines “gaining ground?” Could it be that you are overtaking property that was previously held by the enemy?"

Every once in a while, I see something on FR that just takes my breath away - and your statement does it! "Gaining ground" is usually temporary, the seizing and occupation of key terrain to gain tactical advantage against the enemy. We took Hue City to drive the NVA out in 1968, we assaulted and seized Iwo Jima in 1945, we assaulted Aachen in 1945 - but nobody threw up Century 21 realty signs and developed condos... we returned everything to the locals after we kicked the bad guys out.

As a guess, you didn't attend Command and General Staff college, did you?

Like I said, the constitution is about individual rights - the rights of American citizens, only periferally about property rights.

You can smoke in your house, your like-minded friends' house - right? Should do the trick...

[metesky]

I don't think it's worth arguing with someone who has the mental acuity of a street person.

What's that saying about being unable to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place?

[Madame Dufarge]

But the right to own and enjoy property has always been an important part of the rights of the people. At the Philadelphia convention that drafted the Constitution, John Rutledge of South Carolina reminded the delegates that "property was certainly the principal object of Society." They did not really need much reminding, because the Framers all believed that respect for an individual's property rights lay at the heart of the social contract. Not only did they build institutional safeguards into the Constitution to protect those rights, but the nation soon added important provisions through the Bill of Rights to buttress that protection. Moreover, the Founders did not intend that these protections extend only to land or discernible assets, but to all the rights inherent in property — real or personal, tangible or intangible. They believed that property was "the guardian of every other right," for without the right to own and use and enjoy one's property free from arbitrary governmental interference, there could be no liberty of any sort.

[Madame Dufarge]

Oops, sorry - meant to include you.

[metesky]

The old "property rights" system was controlled by titled landowners and was overthrown in part by our revolution.

This dorf doesn't mean the American Revolution, he means the Roosevelt Revolution.

[swarthyguy]

This got me suspended the other day for language, but, what the heck, it’s true.

Marry a fag, America, Don’t smoke one (well, not in public anyway) ;>>

[Chinstrap61a]

Interesting yet not necessarily correct. While the Founding Fathers were men of property - and the ownership of property was initially considered a prerequisite to the right to vote - The Bill of Rights was specifically directed towards individual rights, as in the Right to free speech and practice of religion, the Right to bear arms, the Right to assemble, etc..

The whole issue of "wars being fought for property" and other such inanities are immaterial: the issue is really whether smoking should be conducted in public places.

The answer is "no" for the same reason I can't spray toluene or methyl ethyl ketone in public areas - those are potentially lethal carcinogens and no one has the right to inflict that danger on another.

As I said before, nobody is arguing against smoking in your own home - just against smoking in public areas.

[Madame Dufarge]

"wars being fought for property" and other such inanities

Good Lord.

If only I could get back those precious moments I squandered on you.

[Chinstrap61a]

"If only I could get back those precious moments I squandered on you. "

OK; you've got 'em back...

You aren't one of my ex-wives, are you?

[CSM]

You are correct and I don’t have the energy today. Boy, do I need this weekend to rest up.

[CSM]

Excellent post, thank you for adding it to the discussion.

[CSM]

OK, I’ll give you one more chance to answer the question. Do you have the ability to stay off privately owned property where the owner allows smoking?

And I’ll add a new question. Do you also support the Kelo decision?

I’ve tried to simplify them so that you can just answer yes/no to both.

[Chinstrap61a]

Yes and no.

Now, have you figured out the difference from "gaining ground" and property possession? I'll take a "yes" or "no" from you too...

[CSM]

I asked, “Do you have the ability to stay off privately owned property where the owner allows smoking?” Chinstrap answered “Yes”

I also asked, “Do you also support the Kelo decision?” Chinstrap answered “No”

So, what is your issue on these threads? Since you agree that you have the ability to stay off property when the owner allows smoking and you also agree that the government should not claim rights to property in the name of the “common good,” what is your actual issue?