Forums | MacLife

Everyone is so concerned with the 'character' and not the arguments presented.  I don't see how it matters.

Even in your prison-cell description of the bar where drinks and currency might be exchanged through a revolving door (perhaps made from bullet-proof glass?), someone would need to go in to wipe tables, sweep up, and do whatever else might be required to ensure public safety.  And there are people who are simply unable to find gainful employment in smoke-free environs.

Last edited by registered_user (2005-03-04 11:07 am)

bratboy wrote:

registered_user wrote:

Everyone is so concerned with the 'character' and not the arguments presented.  I don't see how it matters.

Probably because it comes off as disingenuous.

Even in your prison-cell description of the bar where drinks and currency might be exchanged through a revolving door (perhaps made from bullet-proof glass?), someone would need to go in to wipe tables, sweep up, and do whatever else might be required to ensure public safety.  And there are people who are simply unable to find gainful employment in smoke-free environs.

No no no...the main 'bar' would be non-smoking, including the service bar.  A seperate area with tables (or outside) could be for smoking patrons.

Again, find me an entire BAR staff that actually cares about this, and you get a cookie.

I can't name the bar.  But apparently there is one because elected officials enacted the laws. 

Disingenuous?  I don't want to shock you, but it doesn't say "registered_user" on my driver's license either.

And I don't see why arguing a leftist point of view would preclude me from sounding disingenuous either.

registered_user wrote:

Don't you understand that smoking is not healthy?  Nothing good comes from it.  Nothing at all...

Now you're being selfish!

Actually quite a few men and women have jobs - perhaps thousands - due to tobacco farmers. Actually quite a few children have gone to college because of tobacco - perhaps thousands - due to tobacco farmers. And just in case you never opened a history book, this nation owes its very existence to tobacco farmers.

And since when are things unhealthy completely banned?

Camp David wrote:

registered_user wrote:

Don't you understand that smoking is not healthy?  Nothing good comes from it.  Nothing at all...

Now you're being selfish!

Actually quite a few men and women have jobs - perhaps thousands - due to tobacco farmers. Actually quite a few children have gone to college because of tobacco - perhaps thousands - due to tobacco farmers. And just in case you never opened a history book, this nation owes its very existence to tobacco farmers.

And since when are things unhealthy completely banned?

We also owe our existence to the French, but I don't see you lauding them.

Farming, like any other industry, must change with the times.  The time for farming cancer has past.  Those farmers could go to work not farming cotton and make substantial profit due to subsidies.  Or, they could cultivate any number of other goods to support themselves.  Toboacco is not a tradition, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it is.

Last edited by registered_user (2005-03-04 11:44 am)

registered_user wrote:

Farming, like any other industry, must change with the times.  The time for farming cancer has past.  Those farmers could go to work not farming cotton and make substantial profit due to subsidies.  Or, they could cultivate any number of other goods to support themselves.  Toboacco is not a tradition, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it is.

With a big push (at least here in the midwest) for soy and corn product fuel alternatives (ethanol), why doesn't the government subsidize the conversion from tabacco crops to corn or soybeans, as opposed to the current subsidization of tobacco farming?

registered_user wrote:

Farming, like any other industry, must change with the times.  The time for farming cancer has past.  Those farmers could go to work not farming cotton and make substantial profit due to subsidies.  Or, they could cultivate any number of other goods to support themselves.  Toboacco is not a tradition, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it is.

Going to surprise you with a fact, from the USDA no less: There is no direct link between cancer and cigarettes.. Surprise, surprise... you can also get cancer from asbestos, radiation point sources, or a host of other contributory causes, primarily heredity... although cancer "may" be attributed to smoking, there is no "guarantee" or "fact" governing causation so your "farming cancer" allegory is not only overdramatic but wrong...  Let me know what other crop tobacco farmers could cultivate in their fields? And let me know why they should listen to someone telling them what to grow? Are they not free? "Tobacco not a tradition"... you've never been to the South have you?

Camp David wrote:

Going to surprise you with a fact, from the USDA no less: There is no direct link between cancer and cigarettes..

The USDA might disagree with you. http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/fil … 00-006.htm

Camp David wrote:

Surprise, surprise... you can also get cancer from asbestos, radiation point sources, or a host of other contributory causes, primarily heredity

Happily, asbestos is regulated, and radiation is too, so we've already conquered these social hazards.

Camp David wrote:

Let me know what other crop tobacco farmers could cultivate in their fields?

Corn?  Soy?  Cotton?  pick one.

Camp David wrote:

And let me know why they should listen to someone telling them what to grow? Are they not free? "Tobacco not a tradition"... you've never been to the South have you?

I've been to the south.  And while some families pride themselves as nth generation tobacco farmers, that doesn't make it a tradition.  They're free to grow whatever they want, just not poison.  Similarly, they aren't free to grow opium nor marijuana.

registered_user wrote:

They're free to grow whatever they want, just not poison.  Similarly, they aren't free to grow opium nor marijuana.

They should be allowed to grow marijuana...

ShnickyShnack wrote:

How come nobody's praised my new avatar yet?

Because it blows.

Camp David wrote:

registered_user wrote:

The USDA might disagree with you. http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/fil … 00-006.htm
..

You linked to Gov't Smoking Policy for Buildings when I was talking about the medical cancer linkage? Wow! Is this same EPA banning driving due to the second-hand smoke emitted from mufflers?

You provided no linkage.  I provided linkage to the USDA's own policies.  I don't think I can bring myself to consider the rest of arguments because it seems a modicum of research disproves them.

r_u, the Grand does have a small (re. crappy) smoke free slots section.  Mohegan is better.

CD, I'd like to see your source as well.  I'm still of the understanding that cigarettes are the ONLY legal substance that, when used the way it is intended to be, will kill you.