|
Of course, you can walk off the beach, perhaps to the car park, smoke a few and chug some beer before returning to your chair. 
|
|
|
|
|
I remember when they passed the public smoking laws in California. It was so nice to not have to deal with smoke hardly at all anymore. I say  to those laws.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Me too!
(As someone who is actually allergic to tobacco smoke!)
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
Matt T Heffron wrote: (As someone who is actually allergic to tobacco smoke!)
Since it causes cancer and other health issues, one could say that everyone is "allergic" to the smoke. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Since it causes cancer and other health issues,
Rather certain that for the average person spending the day on a beach in California is going to have a greater negative potential impact on their health than anything besides fantasy land stories associated with second hand smoke on those same beaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: You think it's a fantasy that second-hand smoke causes cancer
What part of the beach and spending the day on it did you not understand in that post and which I specifically pointed out?
|
|
|
|
|
You made it clear that you believe second hand smoke in a beach setting will do nothing. Don't expect me to participate in your delusions.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: You made it clear that you believe second hand smoke in a beach setting will do nothing
And you made it clear that you have no understanding of all associated risks at a beach nor the relative nature of each.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: that you have no understanding of all associated risks at a beach
Sharks. Meteors hitting the earth. Fat guys with no shirt on. Sure, I understand all the risks. What else is there?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: What else is there?
Skin cancer. Rip tides. And others.
|
|
|
|
|
We don't claim the Peoples Republic of California as ours...
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
I know the voices in my head are not real but damn they come up with some good ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
The PRC is so far to the left, that few people are proud to call it their own?? 
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
|
|
|
|
|
It makes more sense than banning public drinking.
|
|
|
|
|
It makes just as much sense. While secondhand smoke may be a problem in enclosed spaces, I challenge anyone to show that it is a greater danger than car pollution or some such outdoors.
As long as the drinker is not disturbing the peace or obstructing traffic - what business is it of anyone if he chooses to do so in public?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Second hand drinking sounds like an interesting concept though.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Second hand drinking
Do you mean drinking American beers produced by large corporations? 
(This is not to disparage American microbrewery beers, some of which are quite good)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I challenge anyone to show that it is a greater danger than car pollution or some such outdoors.
The magnitude of danger is not a valid reason to allow it. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
The decision to expend the cost of removing a danger should depend on the magnitude of the danger. I believe that the magnitude of the danger from secondhand outdoor tobacco smoke is not large enough to warrant the cost of restriction of people's rights.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: restriction of people's rights.
But you shouldn't have the right to throw cancer at me.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: But you shouldn't have the right to throw cancer at me.
In that case, I suggest that we shut down all fossil-burning power plants, stop driving our cars, stop cooking on barbeques, etc. These activities and many others also produce airborne carcinogens.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: These activities and many others also produce airborne carcinogens.
That is true. However, there is a lot of good that also comes from those items. There is not a single good thing that comes from smoking in public.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Some smokers claim that smoking relaxes them. Some claim that it helps improve their thought processes. Most claim to enjoy it.
Who are you to claim that their needs are less valid than your need to barbeque?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Some smokers claim that smoking relaxes them. Some claim that it helps improve their thought processes. Most claim to enjoy it.
Then let them do it somewhere it does not infringe on my rights.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Smokers have the same right to peacefully use the public areas that you do. Given that no harm to others has been demonstrated by secondhand outdoor smoke, how do you justify limiting their use of public areas?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
