A blog on objective thought in today's irrational, subjective world tackling some of the hardest questions of existence using reason and logic.
Published on December 3, 2004 By John Galt In Politics
http://www.mychoice.ca

Yes, this is a group of smokers that are upset that here in Canada we're starting to come to our senses and are banning smoking in all public places. Maybe someday we'll even get to the point of realizing that smoking in a house with a child under the age of 18 is ABUSE and charge people as such.

FACT: Second hand smoke is actually worse than the stuff you suck into your lungs with those cancer sticks. This is just as much fact as Evolution. Yes, I said Evolution. Evolution is essentially a LAW that has never been disproven (despite the best efforts of religious zealots that are prepared to call the sky green when it's blue, blue blue). But somehow people have a right to smoke and harm others in the process.

If you want to smoke, smoke in private where the only person you're killing is you. You have that right. I.e. you have the right to be a moron. Heck, if you want to do pot or cocaine or any other drug, you go right ahead, just do it in private and make sure you don't harm others in the process. That is your right. You have the right to be a moron.

What you don't have a right to do is harm someone else in the process of harming yourself. To put it another way, your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Your freedom does not give you the right to harm others. This is a fundamental principle of law going back to Babylonian times and before. It is the only non-contradictory structure for a legal system and for society. Any law that breaks this rule is unjust by definition.

Smoking bans in public places and in house holds with children under 18 (hasn't happened yet, but here's hoping) is just by definition because it protects people from you swing your fist and hitting them in the face.

Of course we have to like freedom of speech and take the bad with the good... so here's another example of the greatness of the concept of freedom...

But you know what? We don't have to give them a forum to speak, we only have to allow them to speak if they find a form to do so. We don't even have to listen.

You want to smoke? Fine, go smoke, but make no mistake, you're killing yourself and if you do it with others around you, you're killing them too. You have the right to kill yourself. You do not have the right to kill others. You don't even have the right to interfere with their lives so that you can harm yourself. If your action harms others, you don't have the right to do it.

If you don't like this, get over it. You're self-centered (notice not selfish, selfish is good) and arrogant (in the true sense of the word) and the height of stupidity. But we can be sure of one thing: You're going to die faster than normal so we won't have to deal with idiots like those that created www.mychoice.ca very long!

But then what do you expect from people that engage in a knowingly destructive practice? Contradiction, breeds contradiction. (spell checked this time)

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 04, 2004
But i prefer to hang out in a place that allows me to smoke. I pretty much frequent one bar in particular, and i spend a truckload of money when i go. ( i tend to drink like a fish at times...

I've heard the allowed alcohol percentage in the beer in Utah is state limited to something very low, something like 3% - is that true?
on Dec 04, 2004
I'm sorry but this is just waaaaay uncool. DelMar, Calif no longer allows people to smoke on the streets or in their car. If they're spotted smoking in their car, they are pulled over and ticketed


You do realise this is a good thing, right? Along with driving while talking on the phone this is one of those stupidly dangerous things to do while driving. You can't keep both hands on the wheel properly if you're filling your lungs with tar with one hand. Add to that the risk of random burns and spot-fires and you have a really stupid pastime. Personally I'd be happy if anyone who drives like this was shot on sight because it's only a matter of time before their negligence kills someone else.
on Dec 04, 2004
Uhm....cacto? You do realize that shooting people for non arrestable offenses is a BAD thing right? Actually the content is 3.2%. Unless you buy it from a state owned liquor store and it's full strength. We locals have found a loophole though. The microbreweries here can legally brew up to 6% because they "can't regulate the alcohol content" as effectively as major breweries.
on Dec 04, 2004


Reply #18 By: cactoblasta - 12/4/2004 8:01:13 PM
I'm sorry but this is just waaaaay uncool. DelMar, Calif no longer allows people to smoke on the streets or in their car. If they're spotted smoking in their car, they are pulled over and ticketed


You do realise this is a good thing, right? Along with driving while talking on the phone this is one of those stupidly dangerous things to do while driving. You can't keep both hands on the wheel properly if you're filling your lungs with tar with one hand. Add to that the risk of random burns and spot-fires and you have a really stupid pastime. Personally I'd be happy if anyone who drives like this was shot on sight because it's only a matter of time before their negligence kills someone else.


I will agree that talking on the phone is highly dangerous while driving. Which is why they make hands free sets. Just so you don't have to touch the phone while driving. But the bit about driving and smoking is pure CRAP! I take it you don't smoke? Because if you did you would know you don't have to hold a cigarette in your hand to smoke it. You can just leave it hanging from your mouth. Looky here Mr. Canada, for the most part intrusions like that into someones "private" life don't fly in this country!
on Dec 04, 2004
Sorry to be completely off topic, but I really had to post to tell John Galt that I love the name. I'm almost done with Atlas Shrugged right now, and it's amazing. I'm hoping this means you're libertarian. Because if you are, you rock.

Anyway, get back to your meaningful discussion. I haven't decided how I feel about this issue. I think right now, I'm leaning towards people being allowed to smoke anywhere they want to, though. Why should we take away that right? I guess it's a question how limiting rights to protect the rights of others, and how much we can limit them.
on Dec 04, 2004

A-r-r-o-g-a-n-t.

I don't mean to sound arrogant in pointing that out though. Sorry!


I'm with you SLC... if you're gonna post an article where the title of it features you calling people idiots, at least run a spell-checker.  You kinda look like an idiot when you can't even spell the word 'arrogant' correctly.


as for the whole 'smoking in public thing', we non-smokers just need to get over it.  Everyone has bad habits that can kill other people.  We the people, drive too fast, drink too much, drive while drunk, physically and emotionally abuse one another, test chemicals, put out too much exhaust, dump waste, kill trees, send our youth off to war & to their deaths, and you're choosing to be this upset about smoking?  Give me, and smokers, a break! 

on Dec 04, 2004
But the bit about driving and smoking is pure CRAP! I take it you don't smoke? Because if you did you would know you don't have to hold a cigarette in your hand to smoke it. You can just leave it hanging from your mouth. Looky here Mr. Canada, for the most part intrusions like that into someones "private" life don't fly in this country!


Yes, holding a cigarette in your mouth is possible. But so is setting fire to your crotch with the ashes and then running into a schoolbus while frantically trying to put the flames out (don't laugh, it's happened more than once). Shooting smoking drivers (and phone-using ones for that matter) would be freaking hilarious. I can see the signs now - "Smokers have a right to die slowly and in great pain at the public expense! A fast death should happen to someone else - like the people we run into by accident!"

By the way I'm not from Canada, or the US for that matter. I'm from Australia, where even most light beers don't have less than 5% alcohol.
on Dec 05, 2004

Reply #23 By: cactoblasta - 12/4/2004 11:53:06 PM
But the bit about driving and smoking is pure CRAP! I take it you don't smoke? Because if you did you would know you don't have to hold a cigarette in your hand to smoke it. You can just leave it hanging from your mouth. Looky here Mr. Canada, for the most part intrusions like that into someones "private" life don't fly in this country!


Yes, holding a cigarette in your mouth is possible. But so is setting fire to your crotch with the ashes and then running into a schoolbus while frantically trying to put the flames out (don't laugh, it's happened more than once). Shooting smoking drivers (and phone-using ones for that matter) would be freaking hilarious. I can see the signs now - "Smokers have a right to die slowly and in great pain at the public expense! A fast death should happen to someone else - like the people we run into by accident!"

By the way I'm not from Canada, or the US for that matter. I'm from Australia, where even most light beers don't have less than 5% alcohol


And what is the percentage of that happening?

And BTW I'll say it once more for you slowly.
for the most part intrusions like that into someones "private" life don't fly in this country


on Dec 05, 2004
for the most part intrusions like that into someones "private" life don't fly in this country


I'm sure they don't. That's why there's so much litigation, and so many people lobbying for laws for or against just about anything. After all, Americans don't want to legislate the private lives of others.
on Dec 05, 2004
Smoking in Cars and driving with a cell phone in use:

Both can't possibly be illegal by an objective view of law. (just as speeding can't) why? Because they are legislating on what you MIGHT do, not what you're in the act of doing or have done. And lets be clear, you can argue that they are in the act of smoking in a car. That isn't the point, that in and of itself does not violate the rule of all law: You can do whatever you want so long as you don't physically harm another (St. Thomas Aquinas). Smoking in a car (alone) doesn't harm anyone else. If you get into an accident, then you've harmed someone else. But just because you're more likely to do something doesn't make it illegal, it just means that you're more likely but depending on your skills, you could overcome that. As soon as laws try and be "preventative" you end up with injustice.

Yes, I can't spell and I was in a rush and anoyed, so I didn't run it through word first

As for the "unamerican":

Children under the age of 18 are forced to live in your house (well they're not, but for the purposes of law, you might as well see it that way because it's pretty close to the truth). Since second hand smoke is absolutely very bad for you (children in households with people smoking in it are 200% more likely to have asthma than those with non-smoking parents). You would call it abuse if you took that same cigarrette and put it out against your child's skin every time you finished one, and yet, that just harms the skin. In the case of secondhand smoke, you're talking about lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart amoung other things including skin being harmed by your actions for which the child is powerless to stop. If burning your child with a cigarette is unthinkable and no one would argue it is abuse, then why would something that is absolutely 100% way worse for them not be? You are taking a weapon and slowly killing your child. At best you're harming them and maiming them by preventing their bodies from breathing correctly. That's abuse.

Just as if a woman drinks or smokes during pregnacy and brings that pregnacy to term and has the child they should be charged with assult, and if the child doesn't live because of fetal alchohol syndrom or the like, they should be charged with 1st degree murder (it's pre-medidated, planned killing)

Assult is assult no matter if you hurt something you can see or if you hurt something you can't (so long as it's physical, mental isn't against the law for obvious reasons) I would say that a nation of laws like the US would absolutely be in favour of banning child abuse... There is no constitutional violation at all by preventing a parent from abusing their child, so that one goes out the window.

As for bars: Bars are NOT public places. I disagree with the concept of making this illegal completely. (and any other private establishment) You have the freedom of association (or the equivalent thereof) and you have the right to administer your premises however you see fit, further non-smokers have the choice to come into a bar or not and be exposed. If they don't want to be, they can leave or not come in at all. If enough people like me get upset about having to breath that stuff, there will be non-smoking bars, it's just a fact of economics. Public places on the other hand is an entirely different story. It isn't someone else's perogative to go there or not, it's their right to be there, and your right to be there does not give you the right to assult anyone else because of a dirty habit.

Alchohol is a different story. So long as you don't harm another, do whatever you wish with it. Me sitting beside you while you drink does not physically harm me in any way (at least so long as you don't pass out and pure your drink on me...in which case I can sue you if I really wanted to). Go nuts.

The first law of the universe is non-contradiction. There is no such thing as a contradiction. if you encounter one, check your premises, because you're wrong.
on Dec 05, 2004

Firstly, I agree that smoking should not be allowed in bars. I go to bars for its social setting. In fact, I think alcohol should be banned from bars as well.


Secondly, smoking while driving can distract a driver, but so can talking while driving, listening to music while driving, sneezing while driving, etc. Therefore, I think radios, talking, and sneezing should be forbidden while driving.


Thirdly, it's true that second-hand smoke is harmful to children. It's also true that many foods are harmful to children. Therefore, the only solution is for the benevolent government to tell families what they can and can't do.


Finally, saying something is as true as evolution does not make something as true as evolution.

on Dec 05, 2004

Yes, holding a cigarette in your mouth is possible. But so is setting fire to your crotch with the ashes and then running into a schoolbus while frantically trying to put the flames out (don't laugh, it's happened more than once). Shooting smoking drivers (and phone-using ones for that matter) would be freaking hilarious. I can see the signs now - "Smokers have a right to die slowly and in great pain at the public expense! A fast death should happen to someone else - like the people we run into by accident!"


I agree. It's fun to shoot smokers, but rapists, child molestors, and murderers? HELL NO!


We should also kill fat and/or old people. They die slowly at public expense.

on Dec 05, 2004
I agree. It's fun to shoot smokers, but rapists, child molestors, and murderers? HELL NO!


We should also kill fat and/or old people. They die slowly at public expense.


It was a joke, mate. You don't need to take everything so seriously, especially in a thread where the very name is misspelt.
on Dec 05, 2004


Firstly, I agree that smoking should not be allowed in bars. I go to bars for its social setting. In fact, I think alcohol should be banned from bars as well.


Secondly, smoking while driving can distract a driver, but so can talking while driving, listening to music while driving, sneezing while driving, etc. Therefore, I think radios, talking, and sneezing should be forbidden while driving.


Thirdly, it's true that second-hand smoke is harmful to children. It's also true that many foods are harmful to children. Therefore, the only solution is for the benevolent government to tell families what they can and can't do.


Finally, saying something is as true as evolution does not make something as true as evolution.


Haha, very nice. At first I thought you were serious when I started reading the first point. Nice post, though. I'd have to agree.
on Dec 05, 2004
Hey Buu?

They already have those. They're called RESTARUANTS!

And thanks for the clarifications on your position John.
3 Pages1 2 3