Crimimals

[GeorgeMichael]

Do you think that criminals should have rights? If you do what rights do you think should be given to them, and if you don't then why?

Debate! :)

[jordanisonfire]

Depends on how you define criminals. I believe some "criminals" aren't really breaking the law. Some laws are just stupid.

[Rafael Domination]

Other criminals, on the other hand, don't seem to deserve rights. I'm talking about the ones that wouldn't give a damn about laws, and would pass on a second chance. There are people out there who enjoy killing others in cold blood. If it were up to me, I'd say only humans deserve Human Rights...

[Imelda]

When people break the law, we should lock them up in a cell, alone, with a bed, a toilet, and their thoughts, and feed them nothing but your basic protein, carbs, fat, vitamins and water. Murderers and rapists can sit there and think about what they did for the rest of their lives. Everyone else gets a time appropriate to their crime.

Or that's what's happening when I rule the world. None of this Sky TV and pool table business. :glare:

[Shaun]

When you commit a serious crime (murder, rape, genocide, etc.) you forfeit the majority of your rights as a citizen (for whatever country you are a part of). That's why we lock you up. If you steal a candy bar, that's not really a crime. It's illegal, but you still have basic rights as a citizen, within reason.
I agree with Imelda though. You have NO rights beyond HUMAN rights when you commit a crime. There should be no variety in what you are given to eat, no television, no reading, no gym, no basketball, no fun whatsoever. In fact, the only thing you should be given is the necessities of life: toilet, shower, water, food. That's it.
As for what these criminals should do: They should be forced into labor. Now, you might call this indentured servitude, but hear me out. All of us who have no committed crimes have to work to feed ourselves, to get around, to do pretty much anything to survive. We can't just walk down the street and say "feed me or magic man in the sky". That doesn't work. So why exactly do criminals get to sit on their asses on a bed eating free food and have a free roof over their heads? Hmm? Put them to work on highways digging ditches. Or, a great thing would be to have criminals working on farms doing the work that farmers would have to hire illegal immigrants for. That's free labor for the farmer, which drives costs down and makes it better for the rest of us.
Criminals shouldn't be handed a free "get everything you need" card. That's immoral.

[Crocolyle]

Repeat offensive sexual offenders, except in the case of statutory rape where the victim is sexually mature and consented, should be castrated to enable them to become productive, asexual members of society.

Marijuana should be legalized to curb some drug related crime and to make more room in prisons.

Death Penalty should be abolished.

Solitary confinement and harsh conditions only for those that present a physical danger to society and are sentenced to life without parole.

Other punishments should focus more on reforming them to be released back into society. We can't drive them insane with loneliness... Like a reeducation program (more like home economics and anger management type things than like Miniluv), socialized jobs, and shrink analysis... if that wasn't too expensive.

[Shaun]

I agree with most points, Croc, except on the death penalty and on reform, unless they pay for that reform out of their own labor. Quite honestly I really don't want to pay anything at all for these people (the violent ones mostly). They are sub human to me because they do not consider the rights of the people they hurt. While there might be mental instability in some cases, some people are just fucked up to begin with and can't be rehabilitated and I'm not willing to pay more taxes to fix them in hopes they don't snap again. Rehabilitation doesn't always work, which is why we don't have it in most prison systems. Rapists, for example, have done the chemical castration, among other means, and have still gone out and killed again. Some people who molested children got help, were released, and in due time molested children again. It doesn't have a good enough track record for me. Plus, as I said, I don't want to pay for it. I'd rather my money went to people who deserve it, and as far as I'm concerned, criminals don't deserve a free ride off my tax money.
And some people should be killed off...because they can never go back to society and they will always be violent and dangerous and no civilized society needs people like that. Although, I'm against the death penalty in most cases...

Ugh. Oh and yes, legalize MJ and other drugs and subsidize it through the government like Amsterdam and use the tax money from it to finance the deficit...

[Rafael Domination]

And some people should be killed off...because they can never go back to society and they will always be violent and dangerous and no civilized society needs people like that. Although, I'm against the death penalty in most cases...

That sounds just about right. Some, though, I wouldn't kill off just because they deserve more than an easy way out...:P

Ugh. Oh and yes, legalize MJ and other drugs and subsidize it through the government like Amsterdam and use the tax money from it to finance the deficit...

Were you being sarcastic? If it was up to me, I'd spend more time trying to decrease the number of druggies with rehab - and wipe out more of the dangerous and addictive drugs.

[jordanisonfire]

I think all drugs should be legalised. If the people are foolish enough to take them, then they deserve what happens to them.

[Rafael Domination]

Well, I'll admit, I used to have that kind of thinking, but I have friends who are addicted to drugs, and they want to die because they want to quit but just can't. It's hard to seek help, and when I look at their troubled lives, I realized that it was all to easy for lil' ol perfect me to condemn them. Personally, I'd keep all those horrifying drugs illegal, and use more cash to exterminate drug dealers and give rehab to people.

[Shaun]

I was serious, Raf. The war on drugs has been a failure and always will be a failure. You can't defeat it, period. End of story. So, the best thing for the U.S. to do is not act like morons and do like some smarter countries have done and legalize it with regulations.

[Rafael Domination]

Maybe we just need to take a few more drastic measures ;)

[jordanisonfire]

legalize it with regulations.

But what's the guarantee people will obey the regulations? Surely, if addicts are getting cannabis legally, then they'll be too addicted to want to obey regulations.

[Shaun]

But what's the guarantee people will obey the regulations? Surely, if addicts are getting cannabis legally, then they'll be too addicted to want to obey regulations.

There's no guarantee, and you're right. We have lots of rules about alcohol, which was once banned and rightfully made legal. But MOST people follow the rules. We hear about drunk driving all the time, but that's not most people, that's a small portion of people. A few hundred people a year that show up on the news is nothing compared to the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions who do follow the law.

So there's no guarantee, however, it will do us good and here's how:
a) No wasted money on court fees for people who have to go to court for being caught with pot on them or cocaine or whatever, who may or may not be high at the time. This sucks up a lot of funds that should go to things that are more important. Remember, people who get caught with illegal drugs might not be using those drugs in a poor manner (beyond the fact that illegal drugs are illegal). Some potheads are morons and do stupid things, but a lot of potheads smoke pot at their homes, stay there, and wake up the next day and do whatever it is they normally do. They don't kill people or whatever.
b) Tax money brought in by government subsidized drugs (which would be cheaper, and, in theory, would be of better quality considering that the government has a lot more resources at hand to come up with more strains, etc.) would pay for a lot of things like education, etc. We're talking about a billion dollar industry that could be taxed and deferred to useful programs. Yes, it would still be a billion dollar industry. Yes, it would bring in a profit.
c) We could spend more time catching the people who do drugs and then do something retarded than wasting time trying to catch all people who do drugs and not making a mark at all.
d) Goodbye drug cartels. Why? They don't want government subsidized drugs. Why? Because they'll go out of business. The government can produce it cheaper, better, and in larger quantities, and there's not issue with transporting it across the country, whereas some drug cartels use illegal immigration as a way to get drugs into the country. This would, in theory, reduce drug related crime. Not to mention, if anyone can go down the street and buy drugs from their local Government Store, there'd be less fighting, in theory and to some extent, over such stupid things as turf wars, etc. This is mostly speculation on the part of reduced violence/crime though. There might be resistance.

So, I see lots of benefits. Besides, people abuse drugs whether we make laws that say drugs are illegal. If they're going to do it anyway, shouldn't we at least do something useful about it? This is similar to the teen sex thing. Teens are going to do it no matter how much you tell them not to...so wouldn't it be better to give them condoms or teach them about sex than to leave them ignorant and have them get pregnant?

Yeah, I think so.

[jordanisonfire]

Well, these things could work even better if their weren't any restrictions. But do you mean restrictions on the drug-takers or the actual drugs themselves?

[Shaun]

Restrictions in both places. Just like alcohol, which has been remarkably effective. We learned already that banning something doesn't work.

[jordanisonfire]

Yeah, 'cos England has banned smokers from smoking indoors unless it's in their own houses. But that worked out a treat, 'cos now all the smokers are out on the streets giving everyone passive smoking, not just the one's in pubs and such.

[Shaun]

Yeah, well smoking is always a difficult thing to manage. Honestly I think the whole practice should be banned.

[Imelda]

Yeah, 'cos England has banned smokers from smoking indoors unless it's in their own houses. But that worked out a treat, 'cos now all the smokers are out on the streets giving everyone passive smoking, not just the one's in pubs and such.

Yeah but you can hold your breath for a few seconds while you walk past, instead of dying for an entire meal. :p It's generally much improved.

[Crocolyle]

Some of the more dangerous drugs should remain illegal, because that will hopefully deter people from using them. I mean, people--up to a certain extent--be protected from their own stupidity... but... um... Drugs... are bad... m'kay? (South Park)

I'm against the death penalty entirely. I believe people do not have the right to kill--though war and self defense are my exceptions, even though one could take the argument that it is necessary to kill criminals as they are a danger to society. But I think their removal from society neutralizes them, making their death moot.

Labor camps = the shiz

EDIT: ... Shaun, how can you be for the legalization of MJ, but against smoking? Doesn't MJ require smoking?

Though smoking anything is a disgusting habit and harmful to your health, it should be legal. While, I think in many public establishments it should be banned, private enterprises should decide the smoking policies in their institutions. If I own a restaurant it should be up to me whether or not to allow smokers. If nonsmokers don't want to come in and if it ruins my air conditioning system, that is my choice. For the record, I'm personally against smoking and many people in my family have died of smoking related illness. It just isn't the governments right to regulate it. Ironically, smoking actually helps our government through taxation and shortening lifespans and thus decreasing the cost of health care...

[Imelda]

EDIT: ... Shaun, how can you be for the legalization of MJ, but against smoking? Doesn't MJ require smoking?

AHA! A flaw in the man's argument!

Croc, I love you. :D

Shauny isn't always right, Shauny isn't always right! *dances*

[Crocolyle]

I do what I can, Imelda. I do what I can.

[Shaun]

Labor camps = the shiz

This is the only way you can get me to support dropping the death penalty. I do NOT want to pay for criminals to live in prisons. Sorry. I want my taxes to go to things that are more important than criminals. They chose to be criminals, the rest of us did not. Why should we be forced to pay them anything at all? Make them fucking work.

EDIT: ... Shaun, how can you be for the legalization of MJ, but against smoking? Doesn't MJ require smoking?

Two reasons: People smoke around their kids. People smoke around other people. Both result in health complications for everyone else. Get rid of it. Granted, I'm not going to support a law that says "never, you can't ever smoke or we'll take away your life", because that's stupid, but we need tough penalties for that simply because it isn't healthy. If you want to kill yourself, go for it, but don't get me or anyone else involved, especially children who have no choice. We've been far too lax on smoking laws. We need to tax the living hell out of it and do what we can to prevent it from affecting people who can't avoid it (no it's not that easy to avoid cigarette smoke short of becoming a hermit and I'm sorry, but that's fucked up to ask people to stop going in public just because some douchebag wants to pass his cancer smoke around the town).
I support MJ because it isn't nearly as damaging for the secondhand smoke as cigarettes and people generally smoke it inside, which should be where they smoke it and ONLY in their homes (not at work, not in public, etc.). I don't support the public consumption of currently illegal drugs. You do what you want to your body, but again, don't involve me. Public spaces are for public behavior. We don't have sex in the streets and get away with it do we? So, don't smoke MJ or snort coke or do cigarettes there either.
Also, in comparison to cigarettes, MJ does have good medical benefits. I'm against smoking MJ myself, because I just won't ever do it and I'll never teach my children to do it, but I perfectly understand why someone would want it if they are a chemo patient or it can help them balance out their emotions, or whatever other medical benefits the stuff has. MJ is also harder to get addicted to. Yes, there are MJ addictions and yes some people get addicted and it is a bad thing, but almost EVERYONE gets addicted to cigarettes with regular use, it causes just about every type of cancer you can imagine, and is just bad for you, end of story. MJ at least has benefits, but as I said, I don't support its consumption in public spaces nor around people who don't smoke it, such as children. Drug consumption and cigarette consumption should be done either in private or among other people who do the same thing.
If I had my way I'd get rid of cigarettes though, because that is an evil trade in comparison to marijuana. I've hung out with potheads and cigarette people. I'd rather be with the potheads cause they at least don't have a fit when something goes wrong. They laugh about it and piss themselves, and laugh about that and piss themselves again.

Though smoking anything is a disgusting habit and harmful to your health, it should be legal. While, I think in many public establishments it should be banned, private enterprises should decide the smoking policies in their institutions. If I own a restaurant it should be up to me whether or not to allow smokers. If nonsmokers don't want to come in and if it ruins my air conditioning system, that is my choice. For the record, I'm personally against smoking and many people in my family have died of smoking related illness. It just isn't the governments right to regulate it. Ironically, smoking actually helps our government through taxation and shortening lifespans and thus decreasing the cost of health care...

I guess I already said it, but I don't support the public consumption of cigarettes. The toxins don't just stay inside places, they move about, they stick to clothing, etc. So in public spaces that is doubly so and you end up with that being spread around. Again, it's either tell the smokers to do their nasty habit in private, or ask people who don't want to be exposed to it to become hermits. The first one is the logical choice.
And yes, I'm aware of what it does for the government and taxes and blah blah. Don't care. I didn't vote to keep the taxes lower. I voted to make them higher and sometimes I get that and sometimes I don't. Tax the living hell out of it. Smoking cigs is a choice and if you want to go bankrupt for a stupid habit like that, that's your own problem and not mine. Cigs should be taken into account when working on financial support too :P.

Anyway, get rid of cigarettes :P

[Crocolyle]

This is the only way you can get me to support dropping the death penalty. I do NOT want to pay for criminals to live in prisons. Sorry. I want my taxes to go to things that are more important than criminals. They chose to be criminals, the rest of us did not. Why should we be forced to pay them anything at all? Make them fucking work.
Keep a prisoner alive is cheaper than killing him because of the appeal system, lawyers, and bureaucracy. Mostly the appeal system. Unless you want to put in an express lane, keeping them alive would be the most economical route...



Two reasons: People smoke around their kids. People smoke around other people. Both result in health complications for everyone else. Get rid of it. Granted, I'm not going to support a law that says "never, you can't ever smoke or we'll take away your life", because that's stupid, but we need tough penalties for that simply because it isn't healthy. If you want to kill yourself, go for it, but don't get me or anyone else involved, especially children who have no choice. We've been far too lax on smoking laws. We need to tax the living hell out of it and do what we can to prevent it from affecting people who can't avoid it (no it's not that easy to avoid cigarette smoke short of becoming a hermit and I'm sorry, but that's fucked up to ask people to stop going in public just because some douchebag wants to pass his cancer smoke around the town).
Taxing the living hell out of it will lead to smuggling it and expanding the crime problem (most likely it will become similar to and maybe involved with the MJ trade. In fact, in some cities where tax is lower, it is).[/quote]

If people want to smoke let them. Their choice. I don't think it really hurts you unless you violate their personal space and breathe in their fumes. The effects of second hand smoking is

I support MJ because it isn't nearly as damaging for the secondhand smoke as cigarettes and people generally smoke it inside, which should be where they smoke it and ONLY in their homes (not at work, not in public, etc.). I don't support the public consumption of currently illegal drugs. You do what you want to your body, but again, don't involve me. Public spaces are for public behavior. We don't have sex in the streets and get away with it do we? So, don't smoke MJ or snort coke or do cigarettes there either.

In private business establishments, can't the owner of the establishment set the rules of the business establishment as long as it doesn't discriminate against people of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? If I own a bar and I want people to feel free to smoke in it, that's my choice. If you don't want to breathe smoke don't walk into my bar.

I don't think people smoking on the streets poses much of a problem.

You are involving yourself with their private consumption. You said several times cigarettes should be banned or done away with it. Which is it?


Also, in comparison to cigarettes, MJ does have good medical benefits. I'm against smoking MJ myself, because I just won't ever do it and I'll never teach my children to do it, but I perfectly understand why someone would want it if they are a chemo patient or it can help them balance out their emotions, or whatever other medical benefits the stuff has. MJ is also harder to get addicted to. Yes, there are MJ addictions and yes some people get addicted and it is a bad thing, but almost EVERYONE gets addicted to cigarettes with regular use, it causes just about every type of cancer you can imagine, and is just bad for you, end of story. MJ at least has benefits, but as I said, I don't support its consumption in public spaces nor around people who don't smoke it, such as children. Drug consumption and cigarette consumption should be done either in private or among other people who do the same thing.
If I had my way I'd get rid of cigarettes though, because that is an evil trade in comparison to marijuana. I've hung out with potheads and cigarette people. I'd rather be with the potheads cause they at least don't have a fit when something goes wrong. They laugh about it and piss themselves, and laugh about that and piss themselves again.

I know some people who only smoke every so often, like they start smoking a while and randomly stop. Why don't we illegalize corn syrup and fast food? People know the health risk, let them enjoy the product.

Yes... the high crime associated with the drug trade is not evil at all, Shaun. In comparison to the tobacco companies, the murderous gangs raping our cities are less of a blight but more of a minor nuisance...

I have friends who smoke... and they don't have fits when something goes wrong... You can't categorize people like that, it depends on the individual...



I guess I already said it, but I don't support the public consumption of cigarettes. The toxins don't just stay inside places, they move about, they stick to clothing, etc. So in public spaces that is doubly so and you end up with that being spread around. Again, it's either tell the smokers to do their nasty habit in private, or ask people who don't want to be exposed to it to become hermits. The first one is the logical choice.
And yes, I'm aware of what it does for the government and taxes and blah blah. Don't care. I didn't vote to keep the taxes lower. I voted to make them higher and sometimes I get that and sometimes I don't. Tax the living hell out of it. Smoking cigs is a choice and if you want to go bankrupt for a stupid habit like that, that's your own problem and not mine. Cigs should be taken into account when working on financial support too :P.

Anyway, get rid of cigarettes :P

Are you counting private restaurants and business establishments as public places? I think it should be up to the owner of the business establishment, since patrons have the option of entering or not. If you want to get a cheeseburger in a restaurant that has smoke, but don't want to breathe in smoke, tough. Clog your arteries, but spare your lungs elsewhere. Buildings owned by the state should be smoke free.

It's funny how both Liberalism and Conservatism are about limiting freedoms... just Liberalism wants to limit personal freedoms, and Conservatism wants to limit political ones...

[Shaun]

Keep a prisoner alive is cheaper than killing him because of the appeal system, lawyers, and bureaucracy. Mostly the appeal system. Unless you want to put in an express lane, keeping them alive would be the most economical route...

If there is no doubt that someone committed a crime. As in there is clear video evidence, witness, etc. Kill them. No appeal. If there's no way they can say they didn't do it, then there's no reason for them to wait.


Taxing the living hell out of it will lead to smuggling it and expanding the crime problem (most likely it will become similar to and maybe involved with the MJ trade. In fact, in some cities where tax is lower, it is).

If people want to smoke let them. Their choice. I don't think it really hurts you unless you violate their personal space and breathe in their fumes. The effects of second hand smoking is

Okay, so it will become a smuggled trade that isn't illegal...*shrugs* Tobacco companies will go out of business and we'll be better off.
If is your choice to smoke, that's the point. It's your choice to pay for cigs, it's your choice to put cancer in your system, and by making the decision there are consequences. You should be held for attempted murder if you willingly smoke around someone who doesn't want you to and makes it known in a public space or in that person's private space. Second hand smoke is practically a guarantee of cancer and cancer is damn close to death. And people who get cancer from smoking should be denied discounts from healthcare programs, etc. provided their illness is created by the smoking. Sorry, you made the decision to stick cancer into your lungs, if you get lung cancer that's not the insurance company's problem.
(You can obviously tell that I loathe cigarette smokers :P)

In private business establishments, can't the owner of the establishment set the rules of the business establishment as long as it doesn't discriminate against people of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? If I own a bar and I want people to feel free to smoke in it, that's my choice. If you don't want to breathe smoke don't walk into my bar.

What happens when you open the doors for your bar though? That smoke comes out. You can't contain that smoke. You can try, but you'll fail and it will get out and likely bother someone who walks by. Not to mention that you can't discriminate against people who don't want to inhale smoke. As we've said, it's a CHOICE to smoke. You don't have to smoke, you choose to. Someone doesn't really have the choice whether to inhale fumes from a cigarette because he or she HAS to breathe or they die.
There are laws against this for a reason because it means people who want to go in public can't since everyone has smoking places. If you wnat to smoke, smoke somewhere else and leave your cancer garbage elsewhere. This might seem irrational, but I really don't care. It's a choice to smoke, it's not a choice to breathe.

I don't think people smoking on the streets poses much of a problem.

It does because I have to inhale it when I shouldn't have to. I have enough to worry about as it is when it comes to air pollution.

You are involving yourself with their private consumption. You said several times cigarettes should be banned or done away with it. Which is it?

I've said it a few times because that's my personal opinion, not my political opinion. There's a difference. Personally, I'd ban it, politically I'd regulate it and make it illegal to consume in public.
And I'm not involving myself in their private consumption when I'm in public. Hence why it is called a PUBLIC place and not a PRIVATE place. Private consumption is in your own home. And what you do in your own home is your business until you intentionally put someone else's life in danger who can't make the choice not to be involved (i.e. Children).

I know some people who only smoke every so often, like they start smoking a while and randomly stop. Why don't we illegalize corn syrup and fast food? People know the health risk, let them enjoy the product.

Enjoy the product in your home then and don't involve me or anyone else who doesn't want to deal with it in public spaces. I don't have to come to your house if you want to smoke and you don't have to come out in public and fill my lungs with cancerous toxins.
As for corn syrup and fast food:
You can eat a cheeseburger from McDonald's once a month for the rest of your life and not die of cardiac arrest. You can drink a soda once a week and not die or get fat. The health risk is in over consumption. If you smoke moderately, you're still likely to have health problems. One cigarette could give you cancer. One cheeseburger won't clog your arteries or make you a 500 lb behemoth. This is the difference between something that just isn't healthy in any amount or something that isn't health in large amounts.

Yes... the high crime associated with the drug trade is not evil at all, Shaun. In comparison to the tobacco companies, the murderous gangs raping our cities are less of a blight but more of a minor nuisance...

And? What's the point of pointing out the obvious? I never said the drug trade was a happy go lucky bunch of lovely people passing out hugs. Tobacco companies are evil too...so, unless you're arguing that they're lovely companies who pass out candy and happiness...there's really no point in arguing something that is entirely obvious. The drug trade as it stands is violent and evil. I don't deny that. Part of legalizing drugs will help curb that.


I have friends who smoke... and they don't have fits when something goes wrong... You can't categorize people like that, it depends on the individual...

And? I've also hung out with cig smokers. I don't generally like them. There are exceptions to most any rule, I'll agree. But regardless of exception, I just avoid smokers for the most part. I've known some nice smokers and some horrible ones. I'd rather not take the chance to figure out if I've met a nice one.

Are you counting private restaurants and business establishments as public places? I think it should be up to the owner of the business establishment, since patrons have the option of entering or not. If you want to get a cheeseburger in a restaurant that has smoke, but don't want to breathe in smoke, tough. Clog your arteries, but spare your lungs elsewhere. Buildings owned by the state should be smoke free.

What is a private restaurant? What exactly IS a private restaurant? Ones that are selective in who is allowed in? But how do they choose how they select people? Money? Well then that's still a public space since anyone that has the money can go there, in theory. Since they discriminate against race or religion that leaves only some monetary or membership to deem in private, which still makes it a public domain since, in theory, anyone can join (unless they have too many members). Anything in which anyone can go inside, whether they call themselves private or not, is a public space and is subject to the laws of public spaces.
If there is such a thing as a true private space, I'd like to know how they aren't breaking laws, since you can't discriminate against people...
There's also that whole thing that no business in their right mind would give in to smokers since more business is to be had from non-smokers :P. That and they are still public spaces even if privately owned, unless they own the land, the mineral rights, etc etc etc etc. Lots of rights that have to be owned to be considered a private business.

It's funny how both Liberalism and Conservatism are about limiting freedoms... just Liberalism wants to limit personal freedoms, and Conservatism wants to limit political ones...

Personal freedom only exists so long as you don't infringe on the freedoms of others. Smoking is a CHOICE not a right. Breathing isn't a choice. I can't choose not to breathe no more than I can choose to have my heart from pumping just by thinking it. You have the choice to smoke or not to smoke, and with that choice comes consequences and rules. It's your choice to do it and if you don't want to follow the rules, don't. It's not limiting freedom, since you can still smoke, you just can't do it where it will harm other people who can't otherwise avoid you.

[Crocolyle]

If there is no doubt that someone committed a crime. As in there is clear video evidence, witness, etc. Kill them. No appeal. If there's no way they can say they didn't do it, then there's no reason for them to wait.[Quote]

You are a true model for compassion, Shaun. :)



[quote]
Okay, so it will become a smuggled trade that isn't illegal...*shrugs* Tobacco companies will go out of business and we'll be better off.
If is your choice to smoke, that's the point. It's your choice to pay for cigs, it's your choice to put cancer in your system, and by making the decision there are consequences. You should be held for attempted murder if you willingly smoke around someone who doesn't want you to and makes it known in a public space or in that person's private space. Second hand smoke is practically a guarantee of cancer and cancer is damn close to death. And people who get cancer from smoking should be denied discounts from healthcare programs, etc. provided their illness is created by the smoking. Sorry, you made the decision to stick cancer into your lungs, if you get lung cancer that's not the insurance company's problem.
(You can obviously tell that I loathe cigarette smokers :P)

Smuggling, by definition of the word, is illegal. Cigarettes will also become associated with the drug trade, because drug traders are, to an extent, smugglers because they handle smuggled goods and contraband. In several areas drug traders already do sell cigarettes. Because of state and local taxes they buy cigarettes where they are slightly cheaper and then sell them where the tobacco tax is higher.

We would not be better off if Tobacco companies go out of business because it would cause unemployment and remove a valuable source of tax money from out government and increase health care costs because not as many people will be dying of lung cancer.

I agree people who smoke should be removed from health care. Anything to make the line shorter and the price cheaper.


What happens when you open the doors for your bar though? That smoke comes out. You can't contain that smoke. You can try, but you'll fail and it will get out and likely bother someone who walks by. Not to mention that you can't discriminate against people who don't want to inhale smoke. As we've said, it's a CHOICE to smoke. You don't have to smoke, you choose to. Someone doesn't really have the choice whether to inhale fumes from a cigarette because he or she HAS to breathe or they die.
There are laws against this for a reason because it means people who want to go in public can't since everyone has smoking places. If you wnat to smoke, smoke somewhere else and leave your cancer garbage elsewhere. This might seem irrational, but I really don't care. It's a choice to smoke, it's not a choice to breathe.

So choices =/= rights? So because you can chose to vote, it isn't a right? Because I chose to gather in public, it's not a right? Because I chose to bear arms it's not a right? That is the most ludicrous statement you've made by far, and you make a lot regularly. If you can chose to do something legally, you have a right to do it, almost by definition.

It's your choice to enter an area where you know people will be smoking. Ever think of it flipped like that? If you know people at a restaurant smoke, why chose to walk into it if you know it poses a problem? Maybe the law should be restaurants that allow smoking should post it on a door?

I don't know about you, but I don't see this dark gray cloud of fumes exit from buildings often exposing the people on the street to second hand smoking, instantly killing children, the elderly, and asthmatics. I think you're exaggerating... just a tad. But so am I...




I've said it a few times because that's my personal opinion, not my political opinion. There's a difference. Personally, I'd ban it, politically I'd regulate it and make it illegal to consume in public.
And I'm not involving myself in their private consumption when I'm in public. Hence why it is called a PUBLIC place and not a PRIVATE place. Private consumption is in your own home. And what you do in your own home is your business until you intentionally put someone else's life in danger who can't make the choice not to be involved (i.e. Children).

Political opinion is really the only one that matters in this case. Why argue both at the same time? It detracts from the point of the argument, creating a muddled, confused mess.

Enjoy the product in your home then and don't involve me or anyone else who doesn't want to deal with it in public spaces. I don't have to come to your house if you want to smoke and you don't have to come out in public and fill my lungs with cancerous toxins.
As for corn syrup and fast food:
You can eat a cheeseburger from McDonald's once a month for the rest of your life and not die of cardiac arrest. You can drink a soda once a week and not die or get fat. The health risk is in over consumption. If you smoke moderately, you're still likely to have health problems. One cigarette could give you cancer. One cheeseburger won't clog your arteries or make you a 500 lb behemoth. This is the difference between something that just isn't healthy in any amount or something that isn't health in large amounts.

Nutritionists say you should never eat fast food and many fast foods cause cancer. Did you know that eating hot dogs and various sausages increase your chance of pancreatic cancer? I don't think smoking one cigarette will kill you, smoking them regularly and consistently will. Fast food is also addictive. :P


And? What's the point of pointing out the obvious? I never said the drug trade was a happy go lucky bunch of lovely people passing out hugs. Tobacco companies are evil too...so, unless you're arguing that they're lovely companies who pass out candy and happiness...there's really no point in arguing something that is entirely obvious. The drug trade as it stands is violent and evil. I don't deny that. Part of legalizing drugs will help curb that.

You said that the drug trade is less evil. Both products cause deaths, but in the tobacco industry I don't think there's murder.

And? I've also hung out with cig smokers. I don't generally like them. There are exceptions to most any rule, I'll agree. But regardless of exception, I just avoid smokers for the most part. I've known some nice smokers and some horrible ones. I'd rather not take the chance to figure out if I've met a nice one.

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Please keep it out of your arguments. Just because "bad" people smoke, it does not make smoking bad. Your personal prejudice against smokers really is completely irrelevant unless you can statistically prove that most smokers are horrible.

As a note, I have a lot of friends who smoke cigarettes. Most of the ones I know ask if it's okay before they light up. I would say, "Maybe people in CA are just generally jerks, except when they're high" But I try not to let my personal prejudices get into my arguments...



What is a private restaurant? What exactly IS a private restaurant? Ones that are selective in who is allowed in? But how do they choose how they select people? Money? Well then that's still a public space since anyone that has the money can go there, in theory. Since they discriminate against race or religion that leaves only some monetary or membership to deem in private, which still makes it a public domain since, in theory, anyone can join (unless they have too many members). Anything in which anyone can go inside, whether they call themselves private or not, is a public space and is subject to the laws of public spaces.
If there is such a thing as a true private space, I'd like to know how they aren't breaking laws, since you can't discriminate against people...
There's also that whole thing that no business in their right mind would give in to smokers since more business is to be had from non-smokers :P. That and they are still public spaces even if privately owned, unless they own the land, the mineral rights, etc etc etc etc. Lots of rights that have to be owned to be considered a private business.

Privately owned. You are not forced to walk into a privately-owned eating establishment. If you think your health is being put at risk by walking into it, don't, it's that simple. For the government to regulate that is to unnecessarily regulate business, especially small businesses, and to tell the owner how to run his or her own business. It should be their choice.

[Shaun]

You are a true model for compassion, Shaun. :)

I don't afford compassion to people that don't do the same for their victims.

We would not be better off if Tobacco companies go out of business because it would cause unemployment and remove a valuable source of tax money from out government and increase health care costs because not as many people will be dying of lung cancer.

How will healthcare costs go up? Less demand equals lower price. That's the economic model. It would cause unemployment, certainly, but so be it.


So choices =/= rights? So because you can chose to vote, it isn't a right? Because I chose to gather in public, it's not a right? Because I chose to bear arms it's not a right? That is the most ludicrous statement you've made by far, and you make a lot regularly. If you can chose to do something legally, you have a right to do it, almost by definition.

You have a RIGHT to vote. You simply can choose not to. Voting is a right first, a choice second. The same for bearing arms. There are certain things we have a right to do and certain things that are only a choice. Cigarette smoking is one of them. Pay attention to the constitution/declaration. It's right there for you to read what you have a right to do and what you have a choice to do, as well as looking into the laws that we already have in place. It's not ludicrous unless you don't understand the logic.


It's your choice to enter an area where you know people will be smoking. Ever think of it flipped like that? If you know people at a restaurant smoke, why chose to walk into it if you know it poses a problem? Maybe the law should be restaurants that allow smoking should post it on a door?

Because its your right to enter any establishment that is a public space without having to worry about your health being put in danger. Cigarettes are bad for you in any form and are bad for people around you. If I can't enter a building without putting my health at risk...well then what's the world coming to?

I don't know about you, but I don't see this dark gray cloud of fumes exit from buildings often exposing the people on the street to second hand smoking, instantly killing children, the elderly, and asthmatics. I think you're exaggerating... just a tad. But so am I...

I don't know about you but I never said it went around instantly killing children or the elderly or asthmatics. Never said that at all. The thing about cigarettes is it doesn't kill you fast, it kills you slow, which is worse because people don't look ahead when it comes to health. They look at the here and now.

Political opinion is really the only one that matters in this case. Why argue both at the same time? It detracts from the point of the argument, creating a muddled, confused mess.

Only if you choose to muddle and confuse it in your head. My personal opinion on the matter is important to me and it's irrelevant to me if you find it valuable or not. I hate smoking. End of story. Accept it or not, I hate it and I will be a happier person when people who do this vile habit cannot infringe upon me with said habit. If they want to kill themselves, do it where I'm not involved.

Nutritionists say you should never eat fast food and many fast foods cause cancer. Did you know that eating hot dogs and various sausages increase your chance of pancreatic cancer? I don't think smoking one cigarette will kill you, smoking them regularly and consistently will. Fast food is also addictive. :P

Nutritionists also argue over what's right and constantly say "well do this, no, that's wrong, do this, etc." Is milk good for you or bad for you? Do you know? What about water? What's the right amount? I trust nutritionists as much as I trust the President.
And yes, one cigarette can kill you. It just won't kill you tomorrow. You're not at as high a risk as if you were to smoke 500 cigarettes, but it's still a risk.

You said that the drug trade is less evil. Both products cause deaths, but in the tobacco industry I don't think there's murder.

When? I don't remember typing that.

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Please keep it out of your arguments. Just because "bad" people smoke, it does not make smoking bad. Your personal prejudice against smokers really is completely irrelevant unless you can statistically prove that most smokers are horrible.

Making assumptions based on not reading what I wrote is a logical fallacy as well. I said THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO EVERY RULE. That's what I wrote. I didn't say that ALL SMOKERS are bad people. I said I generally avoid them because I don't like smokers.

As a note, I have a lot of friends who smoke cigarettes. Most of the ones I know ask if it's okay before they light up. I would say, "Maybe people in CA are just generally jerks, except when they're high" But I try not to let my personal prejudices get into my arguments...

*shrugs* I don't like smokers. What does it matter?

Privately owned. You are not forced to walk into a privately-owned eating establishment. If you think your health is being put at risk by walking into it, don't, it's that simple. For the government to regulate that is to unnecessarily regulate business, especially small businesses, and to tell the owner how to run his or her own business. It should be their choice.

Privately owned still means a public space. I can own a business and it can still be in the public domain. If my ownership is private it doesn't matter. It becomes a public space because anyone can come in and eat there. There's no such thing is a privately owned business that is also a private space. Privacy is meant for the individual, not for the public.
Therefore, privately owned businesses are subject to the same laws and regulations created by the government as any publicly owned business (publicly owned generally meaning owned by a large committee of sorts).
We tell owners how to run their businesses all the time because that's the law. There are regulations that have to be followed. But if we want to go the route you're thinking then should be almost no limit to what a private owner of a business can do, since they are, as you are trying to say, outside of the law.
That's the distinction. You're trying to apply the same rules of private home ownership to private business ownership. You can smoke in your own home, you can run around naked there, you can let people in or not, it's up to you, etc. The only laws you have to abide to are ones that pertain to individuals rather than to public spaces. You can't do such things in a privately owned business because the business itself is public, just the ownership is private.

[Crocolyle]

How will healthcare costs go up? Less demand equals lower price. That's the economic model. It would cause unemployment, certainly, but so be it.
No--people dying earlier actually keeps prices down.

You have a RIGHT to vote. You simply can choose not to. Voting is a right first, a choice second. The same for bearing arms. There are certain things we have a right to do and certain things that are only a choice. Cigarette smoking is one of them. Pay attention to the constitution/declaration. It's right there for you to read what you have a right to do and what you have a choice to do, as well as looking into the laws that we already have in place. It's not ludicrous unless you don't understand the logic.
Because its your right to enter any establishment that is a public space without having to worry about your health being put in danger. Cigarettes are bad for you in any form and are bad for people around you. If I can't enter a building without putting my health at risk...well then what's the world coming to?

You specifically said something that is a choice is not a right. I think you're the one who doesn't understand logic.

That is not a right, according to you. Pay attention to the Constitution. Nowhere does the constitution say anything even vaguely relating to that.

Chalk dust is bad for asthmatics. Should we ban chalk based products from pool halls? So what if the billiard sharks will lose the right amount of traction on their sticks and hands? The asthmatics will be able to enter without worry. It's your choice to enter buildings; don't enter a building you don't have to enter if you know there's a risk involved. It's that simple. While second hand smoke is a risk, all this is madness really is an attempt by liberals who want to stop smokers from smoking by slowly limiting the places where they can smoke. Liberalism seems to be about limiting ways people can harm themselves--which is fine and dandy, but I don't think they should do.

Secondly, as I've said many times before, the Dec of Ind is not a statement of rights. It's an important document in that it was a list of grievances and formalized the inevitable separation from GB, but it is not a statement of political rights. You actually do not get anything from it. It is an important document, but its purpose was not to establish rights. It's like one vague sentence restating Locke's philosophy in a list of grievances does not actually create rights. It was a letter to King George III. Learn your history.




I don't know about you but I never said it went around instantly killing children or the elderly or asthmatics. Never said that at all. The thing about cigarettes is it doesn't kill you fast, it kills you slow, which is worse because people don't look ahead when it comes to health. They look at the here and now.
I was exaggerating, which you seem to be allowed to do all the time...



Nutritionists also argue over what's right and constantly say "well do this, no, that's wrong, do this, etc." Is milk good for you or bad for you? Do you know? What about water? What's the right amount? I trust nutritionists as much as I trust the President.
And yes, one cigarette can kill you. It just won't kill you tomorrow. You're not at as high a risk as if you were to smoke 500 cigarettes, but it's still a risk.
One hot dog can probably give you pancreatic cancer.

If you don't trust one group of scientists who deal with health, why do you trust another group of bickering scientists that deal with health? That's illogical.



When? I don't remember typing that.

You said "If I had my way I'd get rid of cigarettes though, because that is an evil trade in comparison to marijuana." Remember now?



Making assumptions based on not reading what I wrote is a logical fallacy as well. I said THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO EVERY RULE. That's what I wrote. I didn't say that ALL SMOKERS are bad people. I said I generally avoid them because I don't like smokers.
*shrugs* I don't like smokers. What does it matter?


Yeah it is. What you said was actually the informal logical fallacy of "Hasty Generalization" and kind of a backward "Guild by Assoc." Both of those are informal logical fallacies and, while they can be effectively used in arguments, they really shouldn't as neither provide any substantial evidence to back up your claim. Your implication, was "potheads are nicer than smokers." Your biases are irrelevant.





Privately owned still means a public space. I can own a business and it can still be in the public domain. If my ownership is private it doesn't matter. It becomes a public space because anyone can come in and eat there. There's no such thing is a privately owned business that is also a private space. Privacy is meant for the individual, not for the public.
Therefore, privately owned businesses are subject to the same laws and regulations created by the government as any publicly owned business (publicly owned generally meaning owned by a large committee of sorts).
We tell owners how to run their businesses all the time because that's the law. There are regulations that have to be followed. But if we want to go the route you're thinking then should be almost no limit to what a private owner of a business can do, since they are, as you are trying to say, outside of the law.
That's the distinction. You're trying to apply the same rules of private home ownership to private business ownership. You can smoke in your own home, you can run around naked there, you can let people in or not, it's up to you, etc. The only laws you have to abide to are ones that pertain to individuals rather than to public spaces. You can't do such things in a privately owned business because the business itself is public, just the ownership is private.

There should be a limit, but smoking is not it. If it's a pub that people go to so they can have a beer, a quick meal, and smoke among friends, and the pub encourages that behavior, then they should be allowed to do it. Smoking and nonsmoking sections apparently was not good enough for them. If I may use the fallacy of a slippery slope, since this actually is happening before our very eyes, anti-smoking liberals will not be satisfied until cigarettes, cigars, and hookah are completely removed from American homes and from American culture.

[Shaun]

No--people dying earlier actually keeps prices down.

Sounds iffy to me. Either way, if healthcare has to go up so more people can be healthy and not die painful, slow deaths from stupidity, then that's good.

You specifically said something that is a choice is not a right. I think you're the one who doesn't understand logic.

No, I've said something that is ONLY a choice is not a right. There's nothing in the law that says "you have a right to smoke". That's a choice and only a choice.


That is not a right, according to you. Pay attention to the Constitution. Nowhere does the constitution say anything even vaguely relating to that.

What exactly are you referring to? The public space? I never said that was in the constitution. I've also said that the constitution isn't the only place where we know what is and isn't a right.

Chalk dust is bad for asthmatics. Should we ban chalk based products from pool halls? So what if the billiard sharks will lose the right amount of traction on their sticks and hands? The asthmatics will be able to enter without worry. It's your choice to enter buildings; don't enter a building you don't have to enter if you know there's a risk involved. It's that simple. While second hand smoke is a risk, all this is madness really is an attempt by liberals who want to stop smokers from smoking by slowly limiting the places where they can smoke. Liberalism seems to be about limiting ways people can harm themselves--which is fine and dandy, but I don't think they should do.

Chalk dust doesn't kill you. I know, I'm asthmatic. If I accidentally inhale some chalk dust I'm not going to die, and if for some reason my asthma is that bad, then there would be some changes put into place to accommodate me in a school setting, since that's what we do in this country.
Certainly, liberals and conservatives support the same agenda, but when it comes to smoking it's more to protect the masses than to protect a minority. There are more people in this country who don't smoke and since smoking is a choice, not a right, you can't impose that on other people since it is a health risk. Unless you want non-smokers to become hermits there's no way you can allow smoking in public spaces.

Secondly, as I've said many times before, the Dec of Ind is not a statement of rights. It's an important document in that it was a list of grievances and formalized the inevitable separation from GB, but it is not a statement of political rights. You actually do not get anything from it. It is an important document, but its purpose was not to establish rights. It's like one vague sentence restating Locke's philosophy in a list of grievances does not actually create rights. It was a letter to King George III. Learn your history.

Yes, you've said that, and I've already argued that it is. Doesn't matter what its purpose was, it still established rights we have to this day.


I was exaggerating, which you seem to be allowed to do all the time...

Yup. Get used to it :P. If you're going to exaggerate, make it applicable.


One hot dog can probably give you pancreatic cancer.

According to whom? There are legit people that say eating a hotdog once in a while won't kill you and legit people who say the opposite, and since there isn't agreement, we have to assume that you can't say for certain that a hot dog will kill you or give you cancer or whatever. No legit people are saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer or other health complications.

If you don't trust one group of scientists who deal with health, why do you trust another group of bickering scientists that deal with health? That's illogical.

*rolls eyes* I trust people who make logical agreements based on science rather than faulty science. Nutritionists make lots of guesses. I trust people who do medical research and determine for a fact that things are the way they are. That's not illogical. There is no bickering by any legit group of scientists over whether cigarettes are bad.

You said "If I had my way I'd get rid of cigarettes though, because that is an evil trade in comparison to marijuana." Remember now?

Yes, but the marijuana trade is not what you're thinking about. In fact, of all the illegal drug trafficking, MJ is the least violent. Cocaine, heroine, meth, etc. instill more violence. I'll stick by my statement that cig companies are worse than MJ dealers.

Yeah it is. What you said was actually the informal logical fallacy of "Hasty Generalization" and kind of a backward "Guild by Assoc." Both of those are informal logical fallacies and, while they can be effectively used in arguments, they really shouldn't as neither provide any substantial evidence to back up your claim. Your implication, was "potheads are nicer than smokers." Your biases are irrelevant.

If you don't want to read what I post, then don't read it. Obviously you didn't read it because you're making generalizations yourself. Hypocrisy is a logical fallacy as well.

There should be a limit, but smoking is not it. If it's a pub that people go to so they can have a beer, a quick meal, and smoke among friends, and the pub encourages that behavior, then they should be allowed to do it. Smoking and nonsmoking sections apparently was not good enough for them. If I may use the fallacy of a slippery slope, since this actually is happening before our very eyes, anti-smoking liberals will not be satisfied until cigarettes, cigars, and hookah are completely removed from American homes and from American culture.

Yup, and? I don't think it has anything to do with liberals, since I'm far from being a liberal and I'd love to see the cigarette trade be eradicated. There's a high level of idiocy in this country and we are condoning it by giving outs to people that want to impose their unhealthy habits on other people. At the very least it should be a trade legal in your home or general home-area, but not in public spaces since it is not your right to impose unhealthy things on other people. That's a choice that shouldn't exist.

[Imelda]

Smoking and nonsmoking sections apparently was not good enough for them.

I need to make a point here.

Sectioning things out was pointless. Air doesn't stay in defined sections--it drifted over to the non-smoking sections very easily. And it can give people like Shaun or my aunty, both asthmatics, serious problems. So it really wasn't good enough.

[Shaun]

Thank you, Imelda.