RW>JFD> know that ONE is ONE too many.  When the tobacco companies
  >JFD> file for bankruptcy. I will celebrate
RW>Then who do you go after? The alcohol producers, after all look at
  >all the people who die because it their product.
RT> That certainly would be another justifiable pursuit. But
RT> still not the same.  Kill yourself if you wish with alcohol,
RT> but the only jeopardy to me is the coincidental danger when
RT> you get behind the wheel.  The side affects that hit your
I thought the idea was to "protect our children" from
the danger of tobacco.  That of the amount of tax money
is spent treating tobacco users.  Both of those would
be the same for alcohol.
RT> family and loved ones, however are quite dramatic. Sure,
RT> stop alcohol use to.... we'll all be the better for it. 
So you are willing to have the government decided what
is good for you and what isn't?
RW>Maybe the meat producers, hasn't eating meat been shown
  >to cause deaths?
RT> Not at all related Rich.  Many benefits can be shown from
RT> the consumption of meat products.  Not to say the least of
Sorry but there are no known medical benefits to eating
red meat (or any other meat).
RT> which is a damn good source of protein.  Unlike tobacco,
RT> taken moderately meat consumption returns many more benefits
RT> than costs.
Nope.  For one thing legumes provide that same amount
of protein.  Also the production of meat takes large
amounts of resources (land, energy, etc.) and produces
large amounts pollution.  The raising of grains and
legumes to provide the same amount of food would
produce much, much less of each.
RT> You can sit next to me and eat pure hog lard all day if you
RT> want to and it will not have one iota of effect on me, but
Not quite, see the alcohol section.
RT> sit beside me and smoke a cigarette and _I_ have to breath
RT> it.  I want to eliminate tobacco because of what it does to
RT> _ME_ when _YOU_ use it.
And who is forcing you to sit next to a smoker?  I have
had asthma all my life and the only times I have had
smoke bother me was in a places where I chose to be in.
If I didn't want the smoke I just went somewhere else
and I was doing this LONG before there were no smoking
areas every where.
I also have to be careful with some people and the
perfumes they use that can trigger an attack.  Should
we ban perfumes?  After I "have" to breath it and that
places me in medical danger.
RW>Oh I know, the producers of one of the best known death
  >machines; the automobile.
RT> Automobiles are directly related to human deaths.  That is a
RT> given, but in all facets of life, we are faced with
RT> trade-offs.  We weigh the benefits against the costs and
RT> make an educated decision as to whether or not to allow
RT> something.  In the case of automobiles, it is clear that
RT> society accepts the proposition that the benefits shown from
RT> automobiles outweigh the cost of the related deaths.
IOW, people are willing to kill hundreds of thousands
of people just so they can live far away from work or
can have the fun of 'cruising' or taking a weekend
trip.
They are also willing to pump tons of pollutants in to
the air.  Pollutants that are shown to cause medical
and environmental problems.
Look at the dangers you face from the automobile and
yet you are perfectly willing to keep yours and let
others use them.  Yet just because you don't use or
like cigarette (which I don't either) you are wanting
to ban them.  Sorry but that sounds a little
hypocritical to me.
RT> Conversely, with cigarette smoke, other than the revenue
RT> generated by the industry (that benefit is arguable when
And the government via taxes.  You will note that the
government isn't trying to BAN tobacco (which would
stop the income from it) but to increase the TAXES on
it (which would increase the income from it).  If you
looked at it using your cost/benefit outlook you would
just ban the production, manufacture and sales of it.
RT> compared to the actual costs of smoke related health
RT> problems), the ONLY benefit derived from tobacco use is the
RT> false enjoyment to its solitary user.  I say, "false
Really?  Did you know that tobacco makes a very good
insecticide?  Take a sprayer full of water and add a
little chewing tobacco and spray your lawn or garden.
How about using it to keep animals (rabbits and deer)
from eating your plants?  Same thing just add more
tobacco to the water.
Have you heard that old (60+) smokers have a much lower
incident of Parkinson's disease then non smokers?  The
case of smoking and Altimeters is not as strong but is
still there.  So if you reach 55 or so you might want
to take up smoking because it takes 20-30 years to
develop cancer buy you could be facing Parkinson's in
10.
RT> first place... false enjoyment.  Actually, as a smoker, you
RT> will NEVER feel as good as I do.
There's where you are making a bad assumption.  I don't
smoke and never have.  I just don't think the
government should be telling people what is good for
them and what isn't.
RT> _user_. The _same_ costs are assessed against the non-user
RT> who is unwillingly forced to participate.
Again I ask who has you tied to the chair while they
smoke around you?
RT> Sure, you say that if I am unwilling to breath your smoke,
RT> all I have to do is go somewhere else.  Kinda self serving
RT> on your part, don't you think.... you are assuming the right
RT> to kill yourself and defile the atmosphere around you and my
RT> only choice is to go elsewhere to avoid the same results?
Nope.  I'm assuming that there is still some freedom in
public.  If a business doesn't want me smoking in there
they have the right to make the place smoke free.  Then
if I wanted to smoke -=I'd=- have to go somewhere else.
But what gives you the right to tell a business owner
that he has to kick me out just because YOU don't want
to be around smoke?  If you were in a restaurant and
went up to the owner/manager and said you wanted
someone kicked out because you didn't want to eat in
the same place with a  he'd
laugh in your face.  Yet you are perfectly at ease
asking him to toss some because they are smoking.
RT> If I happen to be shooting at you in a public place and
RT> relentlessly follow you firing away, would your only
RT> recourse be to continue retreating, infinitely?   Hardly. 
RT> You'd have to stop and fight somewhere.  Thats all I'm
RT> doing... returning fire.
No I'd retreat into a place where I had support and
where you would come under fire from all directions.
You want to take the weapons away from one side THEN
start shooting.
RW>So we get rid of tobacco, alcohol, meat and cars and
  >we'll live to 200 right?  Oh rats there is that pesky
  >exercise thing but a federal law forcing everyone to
  >exercise would fix that.
RW>Don't you just love having the Government as your
  >nanny?
RT> No, I'd much rather the self serving a$$hole who lights up
RT> at the next table just as my steak is being served would
RT> voluntarily quit.  That isn't likely to happen, he has
And who FORCED you to enter a restaurants that allowed
smoking?  If non smokers were such a large group there
should be thousands of smoke free restaurants.  Every
time I go some where I try to make sure that it is
smoke free.  If not then I don't bitch when someone
lights up because I know he has just as much a right to
light up as I do to leave or not enter to begin with.
I'd like it if I could go into a restaurants and eat a
meal w/o having a couple of kids from the family
sitting next to me yelling, screaming and crying while
I try to carry on a conversation.  So should be ban
kids?  After all they are interfering with my rights.
RT> the lives of MY loved ones, I'll take it.  In this case, its
RT> government OF the people and BY the people.... and I'm one
RT> of the people.
Is this the same government of the people and by the
people that: locked Japanese-Americans up with out
trials during WWII? and exposed GI to nuclear blast?
and injected kids with radioactive elements with out
consent?  and withheld treatment from men suffering
from syphilis?  and spends $75,000/year on a barber for
the Congressional barbershop?  and makes sure the $0.24
of every dollar spent on welfare makes it to the people
who need the money?
To me the best government is a small government.  If
you don't want to smell smoke then start a smoke free
business or petition your local government.  Don't tell
someone five states away that he can't smoke because
you don't want to smell it.
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------