I can't wait for the new smoking ban in Kansas City!

[shinatoo]

Anyone who is offended by those of us who call the anti-smoking lobby "Nazis" need to realize that it is based in historical fact.

Although Adolph Hitler had a 25-cigarettes-a-day habit early in life, he eventually came to find the addiction disgusting. Especially once German scientists discovered the link between tobacco and lung cancer, at which point the Fuhrer initiated the first anti-smoking campaign in modern history, and the most successful one throughout WWII.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18378_6- ... pires.html

[phna]

Anyone who is offended by those of us who call the anti-smoking lobby "Nazis" need to realize that it is based in historical fact.

Perfect example of the ad hominem.

You also, unwittingly, invoked Godwin's Law. You, automatically, lose.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Perfect example of the ad hominem.

Not really - the political connections with facisim are pretty undeniable. 

[KC-wildcat]

Not really - the political connections with facisim are pretty undeniable. 

And also irrelevant.  Because the smoking ban was "voter approved." 

[phna]

Not really - the political connections with facisim are pretty undeniable. 

It's ad hominem plain and simple. And a losing argument.

A citing of historical fact(also no source to that was given) doesn't make a valid conclusion. Are you saying that an ordinance passed by a public vote is fascist, or that it was put to a public vote by the Nazis in Germany?

Only an idiot would believe this.  &&&

[LenexatoKCMO]

I am not arguing about history I am arguing about schools of political thought. 

Lets see -  a movement aimed at denying liberty and self determination based upon a supreme confidence that the state knows what is best for its citizens better than they do as individuals, all coloured with a tinge of victimhood . . . if it walks like a duck . . .

A thin veneer of democracy in the form of an american style referendom "supported" by some the worst citizen participation in the world does not change the overall political tone of the movement.  A few thousand out of several hundreds of thousands does not truly represnt "the will of the people". 

[phna]

...  A few thousand out of several hundreds of thousands does not truly represnt "the will of the people". 

I agree.

.:  25 million smokers out of 300 million is not a majority.

You're dopamine brain levels are calling for another cigarette.

Can I offer you an e-cigarette? Doctor recommended--no health risk to you or others!

[LenexatoKCMO]

I agree.

.:  25 million smokers out of 300 million is not a majority.

You're dopamine brain levels are calling for another cigarette.

Can I offer you an e-cigarette? Doctor recommended--no health risk to you or others!

Fail - I haven't been a smoker for about 15 years.  Like many freedom-loving Americans, I believe in standing up for civil liberties even when I don't have a self-serving interest. 

[drumatix]

Fail - I haven't been a smoker for about 15 years.  Like many freedom-loving Americans, I believe in standing up for civil liberties even when I don't have a self-serving interest. 

A time-honored way to show unconditional support for civil liberties & personal rights is to stand up for fringe groups & minorities... so casting smokers as a minority doesn't exactly help some of the arguments that your opponents are throwing at you! I can think of few defensible groups more reviled than smokers right now, and I'm always wondering what the next vice du jour will be.

Another time-honored tradition is to flout rules that don't seem reasonable. There's still occasional smoking in my workplace -- so long as there are no complaints it will likely continue.

[shinatoo]

Perfect example of the ad hominem.

You also, unwittingly, invoked Godwin's Law. You, automatically, lose.

I think you need to look up ad hominem as you are not using it correctly. I was also aware that I was triggering Gordon's Law.

You however, ironically, did use ad hominem in your personal attach on me.

[shinatoo]

It's ad hominem plain and simple. And a losing argument.

A citing of historical fact(also no source to that was given) doesn't make a valid conclusion. Are you saying that an ordinance passed by a public vote is fascist, or that it was put to a public vote by the Nazis in Germany?

Only an idiot would believe this.  &&&

I did source my argument.

[phna]

^^   A parrot is not a source. Im sure there is an objective historical reference or scientific study more credible than CRACKED.COM.

It superfluous per Godwin's Law,but, I'll even give you one anyway.

"Conclusion
Policies on tobacco in Nazi Germany are much more complex than is often represented by those who invoke them to condemn those seeking to reduce the burden of disease caused by smoking."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441844/

[KC-wildcat]

Like many freedom-loving Americans, I believe in standing up for civil liberties even when I don't have a self-serving interest. 

Nice work Dr. King.   Remember, we're talking about smoking cigarettes in public places.  

On the "civil liberties" scale, I'd say smoking ordinances rank right down there with seat belt, and cell phone laws.    

 

[KCMax]

Nice work Dr. King.   Remember, we're talking about smoking cigarettes in public places.  

On the "civil liberties" scale, I'd say smoking ordinances rank right down there with seat belt, and cell phone laws.    

Or the fascist laws that prevent me from going without pants in public!

Pants indeed! You know, the Nazis also made people wear certain garments!

[drumatix]

Or the fascist laws that prevent me from going without pants in public!

Pants indeed! You know, the Nazis also made people wear certain garments!

Now that you mention it, laws that mandate pants-wearing are about as useless as anti-smoking laws.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Or the fascist laws that prevent me from going without pants in public!

Pants indeed! You know, the Nazis also made people wear certain garments!

Yes because god knows that in non-nanny states thousands of people are savagly injured or killed through the victomization of having to view the bare human flesh.  We also know America is filled with people who desperately want to walk around without pants but somehow find the restraint not to out of fear of getting some misdemeanor fine. 

[KCPowercat]

guys, Lenexa doesn't even think there should be food safety laws...just to let you know what you are arguing against, of course he's not going to believe in smoking bans.

http://forum.kcrag.com/http://www.kcrag ... 54#p414854

[aknowledgeableperson]

Like many freedom-loving Americans, I believe in standing up for civil liberties even when I don't have a self-serving interest. 

I am not sure that smoking is a civil liberty.  Yes, you may define it as such but I think it is a very long stretch to give it that status.

Of course, maybe I have a civil liberty of having the freedom to walk down the street without having a person smoking a cigarette, cigar, or pipe in front of me or even have the smell of smoke on the person's clothes.  That may be a self-serving interest on my part but if smokers are free to use the civil liberty argument then I am free to counter that argument.

[KC-wildcat]

Yeah, smoking is obviously not a civil liberty.  And Lenexa knows that.  That's why his statement was a bit surprising. 

Con Law 101.  What do'ya think?  rational basis scrutiny? 

[KCMax]

Yes because god knows that in non-nanny states thousands of people are savagly injured or killed through the victomization of having to view the bare human flesh.  We also know America is filled with people who desperately want to walk around without pants but somehow find the restraint not to out of fear of getting some misdemeanor fine.  

I'm not sure what the first sentence is supposed to mean, but the second...yea, they're called "nudists." And second of all, is it only a civil liberty if thousands of people want to do it? How many people have to want to do it before its a civil liberty?