"Religion," or, "The Benefits of Hiding Behind a Church"

baseball99

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Posts
871
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Shelby said:
Grilling and frying produce carcinogenic smoke too. Restaurant employees have a right not to be exposed to this crap either.

Perfume's fucked up too.

And farting has to go.

yes but wouldnt you find it obnoxious if people were standing outside buildings by doorways grilling or frying chicken? also, restaurants have stove tops fitted with vents, etc to limit the amount of smoke workers are exposed to.....

perfume is actually alcohol based which dries quickly, i bet some can eventually be linked to some type of cancer over the long run

cows produce more toxic gas than automobiles (dont remember the article)

also, cigarettes have far more carcinogenic compounds (meaning there are more compounds in cigarettes that can individually cause cancer) than automobiles produce as exhaust

DC_DEEP, first ammendment protects freedom of speech, not action.....most people dont understand the difference between the two.....kinda like the 4th ammendment (i think, might be the 5th) about the right to bear arms.....people dont know its based off the federalist papers and it actually protects your rights to own assault weapons (as defined in the 1790's) and not hunting weapons.....interesting

Smoking and obesity are 2 of the MOST IMPORTANT things you can reduce to prevent significant mortality and morbidity.....Just off the top of my head these cancers are all increased from smoking
lung, esophageal, stomach, cervix, kidney, pancreas, acute myelogenous leukemia, and bladder cancer.....if you can choose any one of those choose the bladder cancer.....smoking can also cause erectile dysfunction (seen even in teenagers) because it can cause vasoconstriction of arteries
Obesity caused an increased risk of obtaining uterine, kidney, cervical, pancreatic, breast, liver, gallbladder, colon, esophageal, liver, and prostate.....not to mention obesity can caused increased levels of estrogen in men because adipose tissue converts testosterone back into estrogen, which can cause breast development, decreased sex drive, and erectile dysfunction
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
baseball99 said:
...DC_DEEP, first ammendment protects freedom of speech, not action.....most people dont understand the difference between the two.....kinda like the 4th ammendment (i think, might be the 5th) about the right to bear arms.....people dont know its based off the federalist papers and it actually protects your rights to own assault weapons (as defined in the 1790's) and not hunting weapons.....interesting
That is exactly the point I have been trying to make in my last several posts. Seems folks don't really read my words very well. First amendment protects the right to speak freely. There is no mention (to my recollection) in the US Constitution of freedom of actions or of expression, just the first amendment protection of free speech. The fourth amendment gives citizens the right to maintain a militia, and within that construct, to keep and bear arms. The fifth amendment, among other things protects your right to refuse to testify against yourself in a trial. But also key within the First amendment is the right to worship freely as one chooses, which would include the choice NOT to worship. The evangelicals don't really seem to understand this one, either. They are forbidden, by the first amendment, to force their religious beliefs upon me. Unfortunately, our government really does not see fit to protect citizens against this type of thing.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
That is exactly the point I have been trying to make in my last several posts. Seems folks don't really read my words very well. First amendment protects the right to speak freely. There is no mention (to my recollection) in the US Constitution of freedom of actions or of expression, just the first amendment protection of free speech. ... .

DC,
Sorry, DC, I wasn't clear that I agree with you on the freedom of action thing. Freedom of action is not protected. The exact wording is as you say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

I used the term "freedom of expression" not to include "action" but to include any means someone might express themselves without speech. I think that is why the word "expression" is sometimes used. For example, the First Amendment protects a novelist, a poet, and a painter as much as it does a speaker. The First Amendment term "speech" is also extended to signs, slogans, armbands, movies, dramatic works, radio and tv entertainment, drawings, engravings, etc.

Forms of speech that have been excepted from First Amendment Protection are Defamation, Causing Panic, Fighting Words, Incitement to Crime, Sedition, and Obscenity.

Controversial is the protection of speech that gives Offense, and speech by a government employee that promotes the establishment of relgion, such as a principal in a public school leading a prayer excercise.

But action is not protected unless it is part of those things that I listed, and that it doesn't violate any other laws. (i.e. a live dramatic play).


Smoking would not normally be considered a form of expression.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Not only is smoking not protected under freedom of speech, it coudl be he basis for very serious consequences.

Example:

A person who is highly alergic to cigarrete smoke is in a public place. I person comes in and is smoking and comes quite close. The person with the severe alergy has a reaction and dies. In some states and in some courts, the cigarrette smoker could be charged with involuntay manslaughter.

Stranger things have happened.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Freddie53 said:
No smoking at all anywhere
Smoking is designated area with separate heating and air systems for smoking areas and non smoking areas
Designated smoking and non smoking areas with the same heating and air systems
No restriction on smokiing in establishment

I see what you're getting at. The trouble is that the carcinogen (uh, cigarette smoke, I mean) doesn't respect the smoking versus non-smoking designations in restaurants, vents or not. Designated non-smoking areas are useless.

How many times have I been seated in a restaurant in a designated "non-smoking" area (which is simply a euphemism for the other side of the aisle from the smokers)? Does the smoke cease fumigating the entire facility out of respect for the non-smoking area? Of course not. Anyone who sniffs their clothing after dining in the "non-smoking" section of a restaurant knows the feeling.

I don't like having to dry clean my clothing after visiting a smoking bar (for even a few minutes). I just avoid the wretched places and go elsewhere. And I let the management know why.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
SpeedoGuy said:
...I don't like having to dry clean my clothing after visiting a smoking bar (for even a few minutes). I just avoid the wretched places and go elsewhere. And I let the management know why.
A most excellent course of action, SG. Unfortunately, most of the stupid lemmings in this country can't figure that one out. Let the economics dictate, in this case. Rather than legislating whether or not a bar allows smoking, how about letting economics and free choice do it? Loud bars are the ones that get to me. It's painful, I can't participate in any conversations, and is not good for the hearing apparatus - so (duh) I don't go to loud bars. It would be a little silly for me to say "loud music has been proven to be hazardous to your hearing, and I don't like it, so I want it outlawed." I just simply don't go to those places.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
JustAsking said:
...I used the term "freedom of expression" not to include "action" but to include any means someone might express themselves without speech. I think that is why the word "expression" is sometimes used. For example, the First Amendment protects a novelist, a poet, and a painter as much as it does a speaker. The First Amendment term "speech" is also extended to signs, slogans, armbands, movies, dramatic works, radio and tv entertainment, drawings, engravings, etc.
The framers of the Constitution were very careful of the wording that they used. It can be very dangerous to use paraphrase of that document as proof of protection. There is a reason that they used the phrase "free speech" as opposed to "free expression."
Forms of speech that have been excepted from First Amendment Protection are Defamation, Causing Panic, Fighting Words, Incitement to Crime, Sedition, and Obscenity.
Keep in mind that most of the exceptions that can cause damages, or abridge the rights of another person.
Controversial is the protection of speech that gives Offense, and speech by a government employee that promotes the establishment of relgion, such as a principal in a public school leading a prayer excercise.
I would argue that these should not be controversial or vague or ambiguous. If someone is just offended by another person's free speech, that's their problem. Free speech is sometimes offensive to some people. A principal in a public school, if acting in his role as principal, is violating the first amendment. If he acts as a private citizen, and prays on a street corner, he is protected.
But action is not protected unless it is part of those things that I listed, and that it doesn't violate any other laws. (i.e. a live dramatic play).
Perhaps better to claim Amendments IX (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people) and X (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) I favor stricter, more literal usage of the Constitution, and it makes me exceptionally nervous when people start "interpreting" it, as our Supreme Court so often (wrongly) does.
Smoking would not normally be considered a form of expression.
Absolutely correct, smoking is NOT a form of expression.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
DC_DEEP said:
.... The fourth amendment gives citizens the right to maintain a militia, and within that construct, to keep and bear arms...
edit: Sorry folks, I was distracted when I typed this one in an earlier post... should have read: The second amendment...
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
SpeedoGuy said:
I just avoid the wretched places and go elsewhere. And I let the management know why.

Which is exactly as it should be. And then it should be up to the owner/mgr to decide whether it's in their best business interest to allow or disallow it, not the self righteous do gooders/insurance lobby.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
Freddie53 said:
A person who is highly alergic to cigarrete smoke is in a public place. I person comes in and is smoking and comes quite close. The person with the severe alergy has a reaction and dies.
:shrug: oilseed rape pollen gives me appalling hayfever. this year, a local farmer has planted a 16-acre field full of the stuff about 200 yards from my house. it's very uncomfortable and it pisses me off, but at the end of the day, it's tough shit for me - i can't tell the guy what to plant and where based on my physical vulnerabilities. it's the responsibility of people with allergies to protect themselves - not the responsibility of the rest of the world to fix things so that they don't have to.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
The framers of the Constitution were very careful of the wording that they used. It can be very dangerous to use paraphrase of that document as proof of protection. There is a reason that they used the phrase "free speech" as opposed to "free expression."
...

I favor stricter, more literal usage of the Constitution, and it makes me exceptionally nervous when people start "interpreting" it, as our Supreme Court so often (wrongly) does. ...

Yes, now i see where you are coming from, but I don't think there is any way to avoid interpretation on any document. It is the nature of language, both in its immediate ambiguity and the shifting meaning and conditions brought on by time. For example, what does the world "press" mean? Does that mean we can press on anything we want without interference from the government? No, we have to look at the context and the intent and read into it that the founding fathers were referring to print media. Then as new forms of journalistic media arise from new technologies, we have to assume that broadcast journalism and even Internet journalism would be included in the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish.

There is no such thing as an interpretation-free reading of the Constitution. The founding fathers knew this and provided a way for the document to live and change and be adapted to a changing world. They created the Supreme Court, whose only responsibility is to interpret the Constitution. If it were possible and advisable to read the document purely literally, you would not need the Supreme Court. You could just look it up. "Lessee, nope, no mention of broadcast journalism in the constitution, so lets lock up Lou Dobbs for speaking out against the government."
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
JustAsking said:
There is no such thing as an interpretation-free reading of the Constitution. The founding fathers knew this and provided a way for the document to live and change and be adapted to a changing world. They created the Supreme Court, whose only responsibility is to interpret the Constitution. If it were possible and advisable to read the document purely literally, you would not need the Supreme Court. You could just look it up. "Lessee, nope, no mention of broadcast journalism in the constitution, so lets lock up Lou Dobbs for speaking out against the government."
LOL I concede your points about expanding some things to accomodate developing technologies, and other related issues. When I talk about the Supreme Court "interpreting" the Constitution, I mean things like Scalia claiming there is no Constitutional guarantee of privacy. I would assert that the 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments disagree with him. Also, when the Supreme Court allows exceptions to the Bill of Rights because they think it is politically advantageous. The only place in the Bill of Rights that the phrase "except in cases" appears is in the 5th amendment, and that only applies to "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." I'm sure you will point out that the word "privacy" does not appear in the 4th amendment, but what else does "secure in ther persons, houses, papers, and effects" mean? To me, it means that my personal security, and that of my home and property, are protected against search and seizure without probable cause and a sworn warrant which specifically describes where they may search, and what they are searching for. Bench Warrants are obviously specifically prohibited by the Constitution, but are commonly used.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, no, I agree with your interpretation on the right to privacy based on that phrase. But you can only get to that with some interpretation.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
JustAsking said:
Actually, no, I agree with your interpretation on the right to privacy based on that phrase. But you can only get to that with some interpretation.

Indeed, there was no way they (FF) could have foreseen all the changes in society (and esp technology) over the last 200+ years.

I believe they drafted the constitution to codify and protect those rights they thought most vital not to exclude or limit the others. I'm by no means an expert on the US constitution but that's how I understand this aspect of it.

Because a de facto right to privacy is not explicity worded therein it's easy for anyone so motivated to make a compelling argument that it's not a right. It goes without saying that the cause for concern is why they would wish to do so.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Shelby said:
Which is exactly as it should be. And then it should be up to the owner/mgr to decide whether it's in their best business interest to allow or disallow it, not the self righteous do gooders/insurance lobby.

And along those lines I agree that the recent popularity of anti-smoking legislation probably has more to do with the insurance industry's concern over potential liability payouts than it does with do gooders or public health issues.