No Martin Luther King In Hawaii

>
> I mis-spoke, sorry about that, I meant just the opposite. And yes, the
> Constitition was designed to protect the rights of the minority, and
> in this
> case the minority are the smokers. So, my basic question has been
> and will
> be, who is protectiing the rights of the minority?

And my point is that there are certain "rights" that are never
protected for
majorities or minorites. There is
no right to cry fire in a crowded theater (Justice Holmes). There is
no
"right" to discriminate against someone because of his minority
race, religion, etc. There is no right for a minority (or a majority)
to do
something that will do serious harm to someone else.
Most scientific studies (an overwhelming majority) demonstrate that
smokers
harm non-smokers.

>
> Look this is real simple. Just because an "expert" says something is
> true,
> does not mean it is true.

Agreed, we're not talking about "an" expert. When the overwhelming
number
of "experts" make a case for something, you at least need to
provide some evidence as to why those experts are wrong or at least
suspicious. Is the earth flat? Some people
think it is. Can you cite a single expert study that says that second
hand
smoke is completely safe for non-smokers?

> The simple fact is, the claim that second
> hand
> smoke causes the kind of damage that is caused is not a slam dunk. The
> simple fact is, there are people who argue that there is no one who has
> proven without a doubt that there is a solid link.

Please give one example of a study that has argued this. Who are these
people?

> But as I have argued
> before, there is a simple way to put this issue to bed, well I think
> there
> is. If second hand smoke causes the problems that people say it
> causes,
> then there should be a whole lot of people with the illnesses that
> are the
> result of second hand smoke. Are there? It was not until around the
> '60's,
> that smoking bans started to take hold. That means there are a whole
> lot of
> people who were expoused to second hand smoke, who by now should be
> showing
> the symptoms of that. Is there?

I think you've got it backwards. We should see a decline in symptoms
after
smoking bans
began to take hold, though they have generally not been in place nearly
as
long as you seem
to think they were. People have presumably been afflicted by 2nd hand
smoke
for hundreds of years, though they might not have realized it because
scientific studies were not done, or
because people died of other things first. We are now beginning to
understand the danger.
At least that is the opinion of the experts (AMA, American Lung
Association, etc.). What evidence do you have
(other than simply not liking their conclusions) that they are wrong?
>

"Bob" <bobinsfom> wrote in message
news:1148106602-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
>>
>> I mis-spoke, sorry about that, I meant just the opposite. And yes,
>> the
>> Constitition was designed to protect the rights of the minority, and
>> in this
>> case the minority are the smokers. So, my basic question has been
>> and will
>> be, who is protectiing the rights of the minority?
>
> And my point is that there are certain "rights" that are never
> protected for
> majorities or minorites. There is
> no right to cry fire in a crowded theater (Justice Holmes).

Yes, there is no absolute right. With rights come responsibility, If
you
abuse those rights, like for smokers, then the government is likely to
take
away your rights. But my question is, who is fighting for the rights
of the
minority, not that the ones who fight for the minority will win.

There is
> no
> "right" to discriminate against someone because of his minority
> race, religion, etc.

That is the way it is today, because there were people willing to fight
for
the rights of those rights of a minority group, in the case of race (the
blacks), which is my entire point. As for religion, that is in our
Constitution.

There is no right for a minority (or a majority)
> to do
> something that will do serious harm to someone else.
> Most scientific studies (an overwhelming majority) demonstrate that
> smokers
> harm non-smokers.

Find a scientific study and post it on this newsgroup that says that.
There
may be such studies, I have not found any yet, in my search of the web.
I
have found just the opposite, doubting the claims, or saying there is no
concrete evidence that is the case, but I have not found any that says
there
is conclusive evidence of that. I have argued, there is one really
simple
way to prove the assertion correct. Smoking was pretty prominent in the
recent past. It has only been in recent decades that smoking bans
became
popular. So, that means there are a whole lot of people who were
expoused
to second hand smoke, for a long period of time. And there are groups
of
people who were expoused to a whole lot of second hand smoke. These
people
are now adults, and getting old. So, if the claim in correct, then we
should be able to show a dramatic drop in the number who have come down
with
diseases associated with second hand smoke, because simply put, fewer
people
are expoused to second hand smoke. Or that one segment of society
should
show a larger than expected rate of coming down with the diseases
associated
with second hand smoke, those who lived with a smoker and were not
smokers,
those who worked in high smoke environments, those who worked in offices
(because as I said before, smoking was allowed in the workplace until
fairly
recent times). Can you prove that has hapeened?
>
>>
>> Look this is real simple. Just because an "expert" says something is
>> true,
>> does not mean it is true.
>
> Agreed, we're not talking about "an" expert. When the overwhelming
> number
> of "experts" make a case for something, you at least need to
> provide some evidence as to why those experts are wrong or at least
> suspicious. Is the earth flat? Some people
> think it is. Can you cite a single expert study that says that second
> hand
> smoke is completely safe for non-smokers?

Well, from what I understand, an "overwhelming" number of experts
believe in
the global warming theory. Are there not a large number of people who
do
not believe that the theory is correct? I answered your question about
the
experts on second hand smoke, but who are these people and what did they
have to say about the effects of second hand smoke.
>
>> The simple fact is, the claim that second
>> hand
>> smoke causes the kind of damage that is caused is not a slam dunk.
>> The
>> simple fact is, there are people who argue that there is no one who
>> has
>> proven without a doubt that there is a solid link.
>
> Please give one example of a study that has argued this. Who are these
> people?

Do a web search, I did.
>
>> But as I have argued
>> before, there is a simple way to put this issue to bed, well I think
>> there
>> is. If second hand smoke causes the problems that people say it
>> causes,
>> then there should be a whole lot of people with the illnesses that
>> are the
>> result of second hand smoke. Are there? It was not until around the
>> '60's,
>> that smoking bans started to take hold. That means there are a whole
>> lot of
>> people who were expoused to second hand smoke, who by now should be
>> showing
>> the symptoms of that. Is there?
>
> I think you've got it backwards. We should see a decline in symptoms
> after
> smoking bans
> began to take hold, though they have generally not been in place nearly
> as
> long as you seem
> to think they were.

Well, they have been in place, so have we seen a decline? Besides that
is a
phony argument. The push to convince people to stop smoking first came
to
my attention in the early 1950's. That is more than fifty years. The
effort to ban smoking in the work place occureed more than twenty years
ago.
If the claim is right, that is enough time to prove conclusively what
the
effects are of second hand smoke, and if not conclusively, it should
show a
definite trend.

People have presumably been afflicted by 2nd hand
> smoke
> for hundreds of years, though they might not have realized it because
> scientific studies were not done, or
> because people died of other things first. We are now beginning to
> understand the danger.
> At least that is the opinion of the experts (AMA, American Lung
> Association, etc.). What evidence do you have
> (other than simply not liking their conclusions) that they are wrong?
>>
>
Well, I did a little more reasearch on that claim. I went to the AMA,
American Lung Association, and the site of the Surgeon General. If
there
was a statement from anyone of them, where they say a whole lot about
the
effects of second hand smoke, I did not find any one of them cite
stuides
that prove the effects of second hand smoke. If you know of such
studies by
these three organizations (all three would be nice), I sure would be
interested in reading about it.

Jerry Okamura wrote:

> As for our Second Amendment Rights, there is a powerful and
> influentual
> organization called the American Rifle Association fighting for
> retaining as
> much of our Second Amendment Rights.... Charlton Heston is no
> longer as
> effective as he once once...I believe he has Alzheimer.

National Rifle Organization, and the current president is Sandra S.
Froman.

Maren

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu wrote:

> Dan Birchall wrote:

>> So... the problem is then that there just aren't
>> that many people who are willing to defend the
>> "right" to smoke, passionately?
>
> as we're already "bad people" for even thinking that
> we might want to smoke somewhere, how should we
> defend ourselves?
>
> We have only been pushed aside quite recently as
> compared to those who at some point stood up for
> themselves to claim or defend their rights.
>
> Dan, you put "right" in double quotes. Are you saying
> that I shouldn't have a right to smoke? How far would
> you like to go with that? Public enclosed places are
> mostly already smoke-free, including quite a few that
> are privately owned (think restaurants or stores).
> How far is it from there to prohibiting smoking in
> our own houses? - Sounds like prohibition, that never
> worked either.
>
> Or are you saying that I should give up at least part
> of the rest of my busy life to passionately defend
> that my right to smoke isn't going to be taken away?
> - Maybe I'll at least print myself a bumper sticker.
>
> Maren

I would hope that we have a return to open air bars. We
once had a lot of them in Waikiki. Maybe that is the
solution to the smoking problem.

Maren I don't think that there is that much of a
controversy. The smokers are vastly outnumbered and
that wont change. And if you children wont come into
your house for the smell, then you might also find
yourself not smoking in your own home. There's a lot of
social pressure. And claiming that you have a right
wont change the opinion of your family or friends.
They're not unfriendly-- just trying to keep you from
dying too early. :)

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1149442505-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu wrote:
>
>> Dan Birchall wrote:
>
>>> So... the problem is then that there just aren't
>>> that many people who are willing to defend the
>>> "right" to smoke, passionately?
>>
>> as we're already "bad people" for even thinking that
>> we might want to smoke somewhere, how should we
>> defend ourselves?
>>
>> We have only been pushed aside quite recently as
>> compared to those who at some point stood up for
>> themselves to claim or defend their rights.
>>
>> Dan, you put "right" in double quotes. Are you saying
>> that I shouldn't have a right to smoke? How far would
>> you like to go with that? Public enclosed places are
>> mostly already smoke-free, including quite a few that
>> are privately owned (think restaurants or stores).
>> How far is it from there to prohibiting smoking in
>> our own houses? - Sounds like prohibition, that never
>> worked either.
>>
>> Or are you saying that I should give up at least part
>> of the rest of my busy life to passionately defend
>> that my right to smoke isn't going to be taken away?
>> - Maybe I'll at least print myself a bumper sticker.
>>
>> Maren
>
> I would hope that we have a return to open air bars. We
> once had a lot of them in Waikiki. Maybe that is the
> solution to the smoking problem.

No it isn't, and you know it. The recent ban on outdoor smoking proves
your
point wrong.
>
> Maren I don't think that there is that much of a
> controversy. The smokers are vastly outnumbered and
> that wont change. And if you children wont come into
> your house for the smell, then you might also find
> yourself not smoking in your own home. There's a lot of
> social pressure. And claiming that you have a right
> wont change the opinion of your family or friends.
> They're not unfriendly-- just trying to keep you from
> dying too early. :)
>

That is the very point of my argument, and why I started this thread.
As
for your argument about what a smoker would do if their children do not
like
the smell of a smoker, there is a big difference. In the case you use,
the
smoker makes a "choice" not to smoke in the house. The smoker is not
"forced" to make that choice.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1149442505-sch@news.lava.net...
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu wrote:

>>> as we're already "bad people" for even thinking that
>>> we might want to smoke somewhere, how should we
>>> defend ourselves?
>>>
>>> We have only been pushed aside quite recently as
>>> compared to those who at some point stood up for
>>> themselves to claim or defend their rights.
>>>
>>> Dan, you put "right" in double quotes. Are you saying
>>> that I shouldn't have a right to smoke? How far would
>>> you like to go with that? Public enclosed places are
>>> mostly already smoke-free, including quite a few that
>>> are privately owned (think restaurants or stores).
>>> How far is it from there to prohibiting smoking in
>>> our own houses? - Sounds like prohibition, that never
>>> worked either.
>>>
>>> Or are you saying that I should give up at least part
>>> of the rest of my busy life to passionately defend
>>> that my right to smoke isn't going to be taken away?
>>> - Maybe I'll at least print myself a bumper sticker.
>>>
>>> Maren
>>
>> I would hope that we have a return to open air bars. We
>> once had a lot of them in Waikiki. Maybe that is the
>> solution to the smoking problem.
>
> No it isn't, and you know it. The recent ban on
> outdoor smoking proves your point wrong.

What's the ban about? Seems to me that anyone should be
able to smoke outdoors.

>> Maren I don't think that there is that much of a
>> controversy. The smokers are vastly outnumbered and
>> that wont change. And if you children wont come into
>> your house for the smell, then you might also find
>> yourself not smoking in your own home. There's a lot
>> of social pressure. And claiming that you have a
>> right wont change the opinion of your family or
>> friends. They're not unfriendly-- just trying to
>> keep you from dying too early. :)
>>
>
> That is the very point of my argument, and why I
> started this thread. As for your argument about what
> a smoker would do if their children do not like the
> smell of a smoker, there is a big difference. In the
> case you use, the smoker makes a "choice" not to
> smoke in the house. The smoker is not "forced" to
> make that choice.

Of course, it's always true that we do what we want to
do. But question here is that of disincentives to stop
doing that. Nothing illegal about that.

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1149635706-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1149442505-sch@news.lava.net...
>>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu wrote:
>
>>>> as we're already "bad people" for even thinking that
>>>> we might want to smoke somewhere, how should we
>>>> defend ourselves?
>>>>
>>>> We have only been pushed aside quite recently as
>>>> compared to those who at some point stood up for
>>>> themselves to claim or defend their rights.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, you put "right" in double quotes. Are you saying
>>>> that I shouldn't have a right to smoke? How far would
>>>> you like to go with that? Public enclosed places are
>>>> mostly already smoke-free, including quite a few that
>>>> are privately owned (think restaurants or stores).
>>>> How far is it from there to prohibiting smoking in
>>>> our own houses? - Sounds like prohibition, that never
>>>> worked either.
>>>>
>>>> Or are you saying that I should give up at least part
>>>> of the rest of my busy life to passionately defend
>>>> that my right to smoke isn't going to be taken away?
>>>> - Maybe I'll at least print myself a bumper sticker.
>>>>
>>>> Maren
>>>
>>> I would hope that we have a return to open air bars. We
>>> once had a lot of them in Waikiki. Maybe that is the
>>> solution to the smoking problem.
>>
>> No it isn't, and you know it. The recent ban on
>> outdoor smoking proves your point wrong.
>
> What's the ban about? Seems to me that anyone should be
> able to smoke outdoors.
>
I suggest you follow your own advice, and read the newspaper.