|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by C716
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:52 am |
|
You agreed with my point JAY
tobacco is NOT under Prohibition. thanks for backing me on that one |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by Jay
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:16 am |
|
| And since it's NOT under prohibition, that means my right to smoke STILL exists, as well the right to smoke for millions of other smokers. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:34 am |
|
| While we are in agreement that smoking is NOT under prohibition. I do not view smoling as a right. Like driving a vehicle, it is siomply a privledge. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Tom
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:37 am |
|
| Well I think it's a right you idiot. |
|
|
Tom
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Aug 24, 2003
Posts: 961
Location: The Kingdom of New Jersey
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:47 am |
|
There is one thing rights and privileges have in common. Both can be taken away. One doesn't really have a right to breathe clean air, because unless you take away vehicles, trains, and buses, you never WILL have clean air. Even with people not smoking outside, the air is still dirty with vehicle fumes.
People have the right to smoke, just like they do with the right to drink. Both ain't illegal, and if you don't like that, then maybe you should stop whining and live with the fact smoking is legal. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by BWilliams
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:11 am |
|
| You're correct in one sense, that smoking is neither a right nor a privelege - it is a hobby. A personal hobby which an individual may or may not undertake depending on their own personal choice. That personal choice is the right we are defending here. In a free society, you have the right to make your own choices, and smoking is one of them. Since there is no positive evidence that second-hand smoke presents any real danger to the public (see recent studies posted on this site), there is no reason to limit any person's ability to choose this hobby. |
|
|
BWilliams
Site Owner
Joined: Jun 05, 2003
Posts: 1081
Location: New York City
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:36 pm |
|
If you think there is no difference between rights & privledges, then, its a mute issue.
Oh I have heard the old arguement about all the OTHER bad stuff out there that is bad for us, so its ok if I do this or that. that is a last ditch arguemnt, yes, I have heard murderers say , " well, killing has always been around, so its no big deal that I did it". Same mentality.
. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:14 pm |
|
Please show me verbatim where I said Overeating was benificial. That is totally an UNtrue statement. Here is the actaual verbage:
As far as overeating............... well, I wont get into it simply because I will never compare eating food ( a nature biological NEED) to smoking ( NOT a Biological requirement) , its like comparing apples to ciggarette butts.. LOL,, there IS no analogy.
******************************
Well you said you would never compare eating in general (which includes not comparing overeating) with smoking. If eating is a "biological need," then that means it's beneficial for someone's health. You don't have to say "overeating is benefical." Anyone with a BA in college from English can figure out you basically said "I'm not going into overating because eating in general isn't comparable with smoking. Eating benefits you, while smoking doesn't."
So in other words, if you think eating isn't comparable with smoking, then (based on your logic) overeating isn't comparable with smoking either since "overeating has a biological need." If overeating does NOT have a biological need, HOW COME YOU STILL WON'T GO INTO IT? I guess the REAL REASON why you won't go into it is because you know overeating is just about as bad as smoking. Neither have biological needs. In fact, overeating is actually worse than smoking, since smoking can't turn someone into an obese person. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:32 pm |
|
Well you said you would never compare eating in general (which includes not comparing overeating) with smoking. WRONG. I said EATING, I never said in General, please do NOt put words in my mouth, now that I have clarified it for YOU.
If eating is a "biological need," then that means it's beneficial for someone's health. You don't have to say "overeating is benefical." Anyone with a BA in college from English can figure out you basically said "I'm not going into overating because eating in general isn't comparable with smoking. Eating benefits you, while smoking doesn't." Appears that I will have to be a bit more elementry in my verbage. I stand by what i said. I do believe overeating is bad for you. BUT, I did NOt compare over eating to smoking.....thats the old smoke and mirrors game that I dont play. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:48 pm |
|
Who said you have to say eating in general directly, dummy?
"I ain't going into overeating because eating is beneficial for you."
I didn't say the words "eating in general," but I just said it indirectly. I basically said in other words "...because all types of eating are benefical for you."
That's like me saying:
"I ain't going into your behavior old friend because old-timers don't have an education."
Didn't I just say indirectly "Old-timers in general don't have an education?" Old Timers in general would include you, just like eating in general includes overeating. You're trying to play the Mr. Right game, but I ain't playing THAT game Mr. Wrong. |
Last edited by Jay on Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
