Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stolaf.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!bormanp From: bormanp@stolaf.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: a reply to Laura's reply to my reply to her reply to FRODO. Message-ID: <1151@stolaf.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Aug-83 16:15:39 EDT Article-I.D.: stolaf.1151 Posted: Mon Aug 15 16:15:39 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Aug-83 13:37:20 EDT Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield MN Lines: 128 Laura, this reply is on the same terms as yours, I do not hate you, but everything is fair game in net.flame. First, let me note a problem between our two articles. We are talking about TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. . . In Canada the rate at which women are taking up smoking is reported to be greater than the rate at which men are quitting. I heard this on the radio a few days ago; I do not have a reference; but this survey is at least as good as Paul's (so far unquoted) survey for the purpose of this discussion. I am talking about the US. Maybe you claim there is no difference between the people and their habits, I say you are wrong. (Actually, I have found most Canadians more pleasent the US citizens). You have looked at whether they smoke or not, and have counted their votes on the basis of your arbitrary decision that all smokers will vote this way and all non-smokers will vote that way. this is not fair. the people who would rather abstain from the whole matter should get their chance to do just that as well, and you have not let them. I am not counting votes at all. I was implying that since there are more non-smokers than smokers, you couldn't fiat the smokers right to smoke. I could introduce you to a group of people who think that banning cocaine is wrong as well, you know. you still have not proven to me that smoking is harmful to non-smokers. Or do you want to ban it because it is harmful to smokers? better be clear, here, because they are two different arguments. Granted, you are the negative and I am the affermative, hence you need no proof what so ever (I always thought that was a lousy rule, but anyway). I really wish I could give the source which show a causual link between passive smoking and lung disorders. Unfortunately, (and you will bitch about this), I no longer have my evidence (I threw it all out at a party to celebrate the end of debate). Pehaps you think that your 'right to air' is more important than their 'right to smoke'. Why? I see nothing but your personal opinion, which is no better to me than somebody else' personal opinion that he should smoke wherever he damn well pleases. Bitchin' right I do. I am not munging anybody's lungs up, they are. I am not doing the action, they are! Passive rights suppercede active rights. You should have the right to do anything you want, PROVIDED IT INFRINGES ON NOT ONE OTHER PERSONS RIGHTS. This is the key, smoking (as is driving and drinking and all sorts of things) is not a right, it is a priviladge (not that I think it is one I would care to have). I agree that no absolute 100% proof positive evidence linking passive smoking with cancer, emphasema (how ever you spell it), and other nifty things that smokers have a surplus of, all though there is a corralation. . . . Again you are being unclear, as you introduce the diseases that smokers have into your sentence about passive smoking. This is generally known as a non sequitur. And these are the same diseases which affect the passive smoker (they are breathing the same poison as the smoker). But, there is 100% proof positive that passive smoking irritates eyes, noses, and the lungs of those being subjected to smoke. The eyes i know about. i do not know about the lungs, but i will take your word for it. Seems to me that the eyes are only irritated under certain concentrations of smoke in the air. perhaps you need better ventilation. You can buy fans that are battery powered at a joke store for 8$ Canadian around here. Thank you, you granted me harm (judges, take note!). What concentration of smoke Laura? Since you don't say, I will have to say that it is very low as it affects me out of doors. (Don't go telling me that my eyes are just whimps, they can lift weights with the best of 'um). Any why the hell should I have to pay for the fan? Make the smokers pay for. Let's put a $5.00/pack tax on cigs so we can revetilate all our public buildings (get people back to work). No Laura, it is not my responsibility to clean up after smokers (how about if I walk a horse down the street infront of you and you have to clean up after him 'cause you think its disgusting, both substances we are talking about a by-products). You have yet to prove to me why there is a need for legislation. You also assume that if people are not 'being courteous' then you need to ban them from smoking. perhaps you would be better off trying to get better ventillation in buildings, for instance. Perhaps you should investigate non-legislative means to get things you want done done. I know that all the money being spent on 'ban smoking' campaigns could build a lot of movie theaters and restaurants, for instance. Oh, pen non-smokers up and let the smokers run free. That violates my rights. I hashed the ventillation stuff above. Non-legislative means? Hmm, how much does a 12 gauge cost these days, maybe a fire hose and douse them. No Laura, the root of the problem is not non-smokers, we are the passive ones, it is the smokers, they are the active ones. Some people have asked me why i want a legal system that is not based on "thou shalt not"s. This is a good example why. If people did not have the option of making things that they find objectionable automatically *wrong* via legislation, they would have to work out their differences in other ways. Too many people use the legal system as a way to express their hatred for other people. i find this frightening. Note: i am not saying that Paul is guilty of this here, but I am commenting on what I consider a 'leap for the law' before other possibilities have been adequately considered. Bitch, smokers won't stop polluting my air for anything less then a 12 gauge or the law. I do not like option 1 and feel that they have forced me to option 2. Tell a smoker to not smoke near you, he tells you to **** off and quit invading his 'rights'. This arguement is going nowhere. It never will. Your turn. -Paul R Borman St. Olaf College (98% smoke free!) ihnp4!stolaf!bormanp Oh, by they way, some, no quite a few of the words above are spelled wrong. I would spend the next 45 minutes fixing it, but I got to do some work.