Re: NAR Board of Trustees

bob: we have 2 things in common: 1 child, a daughter and they both have the same name.... shockie B)

It is simple.

When I eat a Big Mac it only affects ME.

When you light up a cigarette it affects everyone around you against their will.

the difference is clear without ambiguity.

If someone wants to kill themselves or harm themselves so be it. I do not nor do I think I or anyone else should have a say in it. but when you activities affect OTHER people (like smoking) it is an entirely different matter.

as for the fatso's su> >

TO me governement has three purposes.

Run this country under the direction of the people.

Prevent people from infringing on the rights of others.

Protect us from foreign powers.

thats it. anyth> Chris wrote:

I'm all in favor of a MUCH smaller federal government. But I believe (if memory serves) the pre-amble to the constitutions gives the outline of what our government was supposed to be.

1) Establish justice. 2) Ensure domestic tranquility. 3) Provide for a common defense. 4) Promote the general welfare. 5) Ensure the blessings of liberty (to ourselves and our posterity).

It seems every political group has painted at least one of theses (usually more) with a very broad brush.

Curtis

Bill Murray may have been emulating us, as this was the early seventies.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net says... should be outright illegal. period."

Don't forget rockets. Those need to be outlawed as well. ;-)

True, but that was not my example when I jumped into this thread. David Erbas-White asked for an example of a death caused by second hand smoke, and I gave one that I know without a doubt was directly linked. The facts, in that case, back up the claim.

Occassional exposure to many things have minor health risks, and you're correct that most anti-smoking whiners don't know how to put this into perpective with all of their other risk factors.

The REAL second-hand smoke risk is one that is daily, continuous, proximate, and on par with the person being a smoker themselves. This is where the OSHA laws come into play, just as if it were any other high level, continuous exposure to an irritant, carcinogen, or toxin. As a chemist, you must be familiar with this and can distinguish the level of risk compared to somebody passing by on the street with a cigarette.

I'm suprised that you have taken this "all or nothing" black/white argument on laws related to smoking. There are many regulations relating to occupational exposure of common materials where there are no laws against their occassional exposure by consumers. Of course you know that, but your brain cramp was directly followed by brain flatulence. ;-)

-John

Yeah, but I bet *you* were never the caddy for the Dalai Lama. ;)

"It's a Cinderella story... out of nowhere... ..."

-John (thank you very little)

"Chris Taylor Jr" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@newshost01.voicenet.com:

Doesn't much matter. Their effect on others is the same. And one could argue that someone with bad intent is just broken worse.

len.

predisposed to their

If he then

is he evil,

Sounds like the old Reginald Denny Trial Brick Defense: "When is a brick a weapon and when is it a communication device?" >;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Looks like #4 has taken over.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Complete bullshit. all the material IN second hand smoke are KNOWN to be LETHAL to human beings.

if their was only ONE smoker in all the world as you statement below seems to imply you would have a point.

I have a CHOICE about being near a campfire I have a CHOICE about eating greasy foods I have a CHOICE about a lot of things.

I DO NOT have a choice about being around smokers.

BILLIONS of them spew the crap into the atmosphere that I MUST breath in order to live. and do not tell me to breath filtered air. that is the smoker's problem I am not the one smoking.

If you want to make so smokers would have to wear a bubble around their heads to contain all the smoke I am all for it.

my body very clearly tells me its bad so does the body of every smoker when they light up the first one. they simply ignore the PROOF their own bodies are giving them.

Its not just one. its MILLIONS if not BILLIONS every single day in every single part of this country.

It is no longer a choice short of me DYING by not breathing the atmosphere in which I exist.

Chris Taylor

here here

by the way I do not consider myself young. I am 27 years old which means 1/3 of my entire life is GONE and that is if I lose weight and IF I am really lucky.

Chris Taylor

No problem here. see below

posterity).(protect freedoms)

No conflict their.

Chris Taylor

Now take the output of that one smoker and multiply it by all the smokers in the area.

your output IS all or nothing.

you statement of:

"As I have repeatedly stated, there is SOME risk involved with EVERYTHING. You risk cancer every time you step out of your front door and the sun's shining. My point is that if I was to try to eliminate all risks, we'd be worse off than Ludites."

makes this quite clear. you "blow off" the greay area with this blanket statement. this allows you to make a BLACK AND WHITE all or nothing statement and then CLAIM to not have done so based on the technicality of your wording.

Except we do not accept that "crap" reasoning and you know it.

and you forget. the SUN is REQUIRED for our survival. smoking is not.

Chris Taylor

Chris, It's all relative. I'm old enough to have 27 year old kids, so I consider you young. Nothing personal.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Just a few posts ago, you wanted the government to make cigarettes illegal. Don't you think that conflicts with your idea of what government should do? You can't propose that the government regulate everything and still be in favor of limited government. It doesn't work that way.

#4 is the most abused. Our government has used it to justify everything from welfare to medicaid.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Lethal at what levels? Salt is lethal at high concentrations; try drinking a few gallons of seawater sometime.

You don't?! Since when?

You crack me up. You think that you're going to get cancer by breathing air just because it's shared with smokers. I love it. ;-)

Tens of millions of cars are pumping out CO into the atmosphere every second of every day, Chris. Doesn't that concern you more than smokers or doesn't your elevator go to the top floor?

If breathing the same "atmosphere" as smokers was your worst fear, then I'd have to say that life must be pretty good for you, Chris. ;-) All of those darn Chinese smokers puffing away in China are shortening your life here in the US. That's rich. Pardon me while I fall out of my chair laughing. Tell me, Chris, how do you fell about volcanoes? ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers