2nd hand smokers can kill people who try to avoid them, more bannings are neccesary - Page 7

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 12:38 AM

Yeah, the founding fathers would hate to see individual state governments showing a strong hand...they were never for anything like that

thomez · 07-17-2007, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yeah, the founding fathers would hate to see individual state governments showing a strong hand...they were never for anything like that

they did not support democratic mob-rule tyranny at any level

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

they did not support democratic mob-rule tyranny at any level

ive been to the NY state senate and it doesn't look anything like mob-rule to me, and the assembly doesn't look tyrannical

These are voters and citizens of the state using their constitutional powers to serve the people and their grievances

Joe_Cool · 07-17-2007, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There is a fundamental disagreement, I believe the voters should be able to pick their president...senator...congressman...

It'd be grossly unconstitutional and tyrannical to ignore the choice of voters picking someone who meets all the qualifications

So you finally admit that you have no clue what the Constitution says.

The Constitution does not empower the people to choose the president. Only the votes of the electoral college count.

Joe_Cool · 07-17-2007, 08:09 AM

Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill:

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.

Words to live by. The fact that majority of the people don't like smoke doesn't justify banning smoking. If you don't like it, DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT ALLOW IT. It's just that simple.

Joe_Cool · 07-17-2007, 08:15 AM

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
--Thomas Jefferson

Kytro · 07-17-2007, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill:

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.

Words to live by. The fact that majority of the people don't like smoke doesn't justify banning smoking. If you don't like it, DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT ALLOW IT. It's just that simple.

An opinion is one thing - you may say whatever you like but that does not give you the right to put others at risk simply because you want to.

thomez · 07-17-2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

An opinion is one thing - you may say whatever you like but that does not give you the right to put others at risk simply because you want to.

It wouldn't be that hard to never go to a smoking establishment in your life. You'd eat at home a lot, but it wouldn't be hard. People choose to go where there is smoking and then vote to ban it for their personal pleasure.

Scrum · 07-17-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

The fact that majority of the people don't like smoke doesn't justify banning smoking.

Agreed.

I also don't think a majority of people who go to bars have a problem with it. It's just a vocal minority.

Roonie · 07-17-2007, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Agreed.

I also don't think a majority of people who go to bars have a problem with it. It's just a vocal minority.

I wouldn't generalize. It was the minority that wanted to keep the smoke in Seattle. It was unanimously approved with only a very small percentage that didn't approve the ban. Everyone is glad it went through except the remaining few die hard smokers that are so hooked to the drug they can't go 5 minutes without smoking something.

Ardentfrost · 07-17-2007, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

I wouldn't generalize. It was the minority that wanted to keep the smoke in Seattle. It was unanimously approved with only a very small percentage that didn't approve the ban. Everyone is glad it went through except the remaining few die hard smokers that are so hooked to the drug they can't go 5 minutes without smoking something.

The difference is he was talking about the general public, and you're talking about voters.

JaJae · 07-17-2007, 12:12 PM

I think it would be interesting to add a poll to this thread asking if people smoke, used to smoke or never smoked and matching it up with their political beliefs on this issue.

thomez · 07-17-2007, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think it would be interesting to add a poll to this thread asking if people smoke, used to smoke or never smoked and matching it up with their political beliefs on this issue.

you have the power

Linzyhop · 07-17-2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think it would be interesting to add a poll to this thread asking if people smoke, used to smoke or never smoked and matching it up with their political beliefs on this issue.

do it.

i used to smoke, off and on. last time i quit and haven't smoked since was last year in Sept on my bday.

i'm all for the ban in public buildings.

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

So you finally admit that you have no clue what the Constitution says.

The Constitution does not empower the people to choose the president. Only the votes of the electoral college count.

The people have the power to choose the state government, which it believes will best employ electors that will carry out what they want, and on election day they submit their votes to said electors

Yes, it's more complicated, but that's why I included Senators and Representatives, if someone was going to derail a thread about the president that went beyond the scope of the hypothetical, they can refer to senators or members of the house running on such a platform

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
--Thomas Jefferson

Strange coming from someone who had white land-owning males deny rights to women, blacks, hispanics, asians, arabs, north africans, native tribes and their US ancestors, and the poor

He talks about a tyranny of the majority when there was a tyranny of the minority

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill:

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.

Words to live by. The fact that majority of the people don't like smoke doesn't justify banning smoking. If you don't like it, DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT ALLOW IT. It's just that simple.

No, the fact that states have the right to pass laws and the people, courts, etc all agree, makes it justifiable

Linzyhop · 07-17-2007, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Strange coming from someone who had white land-owning males deny rights to women, blacks, hispanics, asians, arabs, north africans, native tribes and their US ancestors, and the poor

He talks about a tyranny of the majority when there was a tyranny of the minority

there were hispanics, asians and arabs in the US fighting for equality when Thomas Jefferson was alive?

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

there were hispanics, asians and arabs in the US fighting for equality when Thomas Jefferson was alive?

well, there certainly weren't blacks fighting for equality, unless you count opening your mouth and getting lynched 5 seconds after you started speaking...I really doubt anyone else raised their voice too much

but the answer to your question is generally yes, do I have documents infront of me? No