Liberals Versus Ronald McDonald

Status
Not open for further replies.
To repeat: That property owner has a right to call himself a private club and invite all the filthy smokers in.

Lets not forget, Mr "No Government Intervention", that property owner has just as much a right to call himself a public drinking establishment and invite in all the "flithy smokers" he wishes, and you can't do a dang thing to stop him...
 
Lets not forget, Mr "No Government Intervention", that property owner has just as much a right to call himself a public drinking establishment and invite in all the "flithy smokers" he wishes, and you can't do a dang thing to stop him...
Who ever said "No Government Intervention"? Not me Bubba. :)
 
Lets not forget, Mr "No Government Intervention", that property owner has just as much a right to call himself a public drinking establishment and invite in all the "flithy smokers" he wishes, and you can't do a dang thing to stop him...

SM screams about limiting gov't intervention.....well, except for protecting his version of marriage.

But thats it! Gov't should not interfere with anything else!!

Well.....except to ban gays. They are unnatural, immoral and unhealthy. But thats it!

Gov't should not interfere in anything else!!

Oh, except for making all businesses nonsmoking. Those filthy smokers don't deserve the freedoms we have. No smoking at all!!

But the gov't shouldn't interfere in anything else. We should be free to decide for ourselves and be responsible for ourselves.

Well, except for acts of sodomy. Those should be illegal.
 
If I was in an enclosed room.

Yeah, in close contact to other people. Better not drive in a city Southern Man. Else you will feel filthy.

It baffles me, this smoking ban. It originally came from the US.

You'd think, however, with America's attitude to free markets, the prevalent mood would be that if there was a market for smoke-free pubs, or saloons, or whatever you call them on your side of the pond, the market would deliver them.

Where was the gun-toting right when this infringement of capitalist liberties occurred?
 
To repeat: That property owner has a right to call himself a private club and invite all the filthy smokers in.
Well I think we are mixing up what is really public and what is private. Any business is private, those that are open to all the public are still private and those you are thinking of as private are just selective about which of the public they serve.
The bottom line is that regardless of WHO they choose to have as customers, they still have the same property rights over what is allowed in their place of business. Disregarding that opens up government to all sorts of property right violations, like for example forcing restaurant owners to allow people to bring their own wine in to drink.
 
Yeah, in close contact to other people. Better not drive in a city Southern Man. Else you will feel filthy.

It baffles me, this smoking ban. It originally came from the US.

You'd think, however, with America's attitude to free markets, the prevalent mood would be that if there was a market for smoke-free pubs, or saloons, or whatever you call them on your side of the pond, the market would deliver them.

Where was the gun-toting right when this infringement of capitalist liberties occurred?

I just got back from 4 days in LA and drove through two tankfuls of gas. There was no smog and no problem. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
 
I just got back from 4 days in LA and drove through two tankfuls of gas. There was no smog and no problem. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Then you are the only one who doesn't. Try reading his posts again. Perhaps your hypocrisy will be more apparent the second time thru them.
 
Well I think we are mixing up what is really public and what is private. Any business is private, those that are open to all the public are still private and those you are thinking of as private are just selective about which of the public they serve.
The bottom line is that regardless of WHO they choose to have as customers, they still have the same property rights over what is allowed in their place of business. Disregarding that opens up government to all sorts of property right violations, like for example forcing restaurant owners to allow people to bring their own wine in to drink.
If they want to serve to the general public then I have no problem with a State or local government requiring them to restrict smoking.
 
Last edited:
Well I think we are mixing up what is really public and what is private. Any business is private, those that are open to all the public are still private and those you are thinking of as private are just selective about which of the public they serve.
The bottom line is that regardless of WHO they choose to have as customers, they still have the same property rights over what is allowed in their place of business. Disregarding that opens up government to all sorts of property right violations, like for example forcing restaurant owners to allow people to bring their own wine in to drink.

Let the markets decide. Pubs etc are non-necessities.
 
If they want to serve to the general public then I have no problem with a State or local government requiring them to restrict smoking.

Why not let the free market determine which restaurants succeed?

If you want to require that they post a sign at the door informing people that they allow smoking, so be it. But having the gov't ban smoking in all restaurants is socialism.
 
You old socialist you! :good4u:
Not at all. I have no problem with any State in the United States doing anything that they want, even to the point of rabid socialism. That doesn't make me a socialist, because I'd simply choose to live in another State.
 
Not at all. I have no problem with any State in the United States doing anything that they want, even to the point of rabid socialism. That doesn't make me a socialist, because I'd simply choose to live in another State.

But you demand that the gov't regulate marriage, people's sexual habits, sexual orientations, smoking, and other things.
 
I just got back from 4 days in LA and drove through two tankfuls of gas. There was no smog and no problem. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Like petroleum combustion exhaust, cigarette smoke is a
very complex chemical mixture that contains volatile,
semi-volatile and non-volatile compounds, the latter associated
with particles. Some 400-500 gaseous compounds
and 3500 particulate phase compounds have been identified
in cigarette smoke. Similarly, gasoline and diesel
exhausts contain hundreds of gas phase compounds,
although not all of the compounds present are identifiable.
Despite many analytic studies, vehicle particulate
matter has only been partially analyzed. Still, of the fraction
analyzed, hundreds of organic compounds and many
inorganic compounds have been identified in exhaust particles.
More appear as the particles age in the atmosphere.
Many of the known toxic compounds in tobacco smoke
are also emitted from combustion of petroleum hydrocarbons,
so there is significant overlap in the lists of compounds
that have been identified in these mixtures to date.
The key difference is that tobacco, being a biological
product, contains much more nitrogen than does crude or
refined petroleum, in which nitrogen is rare. Thus, tobacco
and tobacco smoke contain several classes of nitrogencontaining
chemicals that are not present in petroleum
fuels and their exhausts. Some of these are toxicologically
i m p o rtant, associated with bladder cancer and other
health effects. Thus, there is only a partial parallel in
chemical composition, and some of the differences are
sure to be important ones.
Following are two lists. In the first list, Table 1, are groups
of toxins that are found in both tobacco smoke and petroleum
vehicle exhaust. This list is not intended to be comprehensive,
it is focused mostly on carcinogens and other
important toxic substances. The second list identifies
some classes of chemicals that are associated with tobacco
smoke, but not exhaust. Again, important compounds
from a toxicological point of view were selected.
The list in Table 2 isn't perfectly exclusive since a few of
these compounds were identified by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly present in
diesel exhaust. However, the carcinogenic nitrosamines
derived from nicotine are a very important difference.
There are also some groups of chemicals that are present
in vehicle exhaust but not tobacco, such as hopanes
and steranes, but little to nothing is known about them
toxicologically.

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/pdf/fs/EIN-TobaccoCarExhaust.pdf

Filthy! Because of the hypocrisy, filfthy.
 
Not at all. I have no problem with any State in the United States doing anything that they want, even to the point of rabid socialism. That doesn't make me a socialist, because I'd simply choose to live in another State.

Don't tell me we have a Dixiesque three thirds here? :palm:

Your whole paragraph is oxymoronic, it is a contradiction in terms.
 
Like petroleum combustion exhaust, cigarette smoke is a
very complex chemical mixture that contains volatile,
semi-volatile and non-volatile compounds, the latter associated
with particles. Some 400-500 gaseous compounds
and 3500 particulate phase compounds have been identified
in cigarette smoke. Similarly, gasoline and diesel
exhausts contain hundreds of gas phase compounds,
although not all of the compounds present are identifiable.
Despite many analytic studies, vehicle particulate
matter has only been partially analyzed. Still, of the fraction
analyzed, hundreds of organic compounds and many
inorganic compounds have been identified in exhaust particles.
More appear as the particles age in the atmosphere.
Many of the known toxic compounds in tobacco smoke
are also emitted from combustion of petroleum hydrocarbons,
so there is significant overlap in the lists of compounds
that have been identified in these mixtures to date.
The key difference is that tobacco, being a biological
product, contains much more nitrogen than does crude or
refined petroleum, in which nitrogen is rare. Thus, tobacco
and tobacco smoke contain several classes of nitrogencontaining
chemicals that are not present in petroleum
fuels and their exhausts. Some of these are toxicologically
i m p o rtant, associated with bladder cancer and other
health effects. Thus, there is only a partial parallel in
chemical composition, and some of the differences are
sure to be important ones.
Following are two lists. In the first list, Table 1, are groups
of toxins that are found in both tobacco smoke and petroleum
vehicle exhaust. This list is not intended to be comprehensive,
it is focused mostly on carcinogens and other
important toxic substances. The second list identifies
some classes of chemicals that are associated with tobacco
smoke, but not exhaust. Again, important compounds
from a toxicological point of view were selected.
The list in Table 2 isn't perfectly exclusive since a few of
these compounds were identified by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly present in
diesel exhaust. However, the carcinogenic nitrosamines
derived from nicotine are a very important difference.
There are also some groups of chemicals that are present
in vehicle exhaust but not tobacco, such as hopanes
and steranes, but little to nothing is known about them
toxicologically.

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/pdf/fs/EIN-TobaccoCarExhaust.pdf

Filthy! Because of the hypocrisy, filfthy.

Ever hear about "dosage"? Everything's toxic given a high enough concentration.
 
Don't tell me we have a Dixiesque three thirds here? :palm:

Your whole paragraph is oxymoronic, it is a contradiction in terms.
Actually, its called "freedom" and "choice". Lib-Tards can have the "freedom" to "choose" to live in MA or CA, conservatives can live in UT or TX.
 
Ever hear about "dosage"? Everything's toxic given a high enough concentration.

No its not.

I've been breathing air for 35 years now. You might just say I'm hooked. And its not poisoning me.

Try again Southern. How exactly have we not found a massive contradiction in your whole argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top