Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Oct 1, 2009.
From Ithaca, NY (home of Cornell Univ)
This is already law in Iowa.
That's simple compared to our laws...
All County property.. All Hospitals and property.. All businesses and 20 feet from all businesses entrances (including churches) are tobacco free zones...
I guess if 10 foot bans put people in the middle of the street.. 20 feet move them to the other side of the road!!! LOL
We are all about safety!
And of course, this comes from the one, definitive, incorruptable, proven, indesputable, scientific study that PROVED smoking causes cancer. And of course that evidence was called the......the.....well , I can't remember the name of the study/evidence that PROVED smoking causes cancer but I'm sure one of you will. And of course, this evidence PROVES that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
I personally am not a smoker, nor do I think people should smoke. However, I don't care for these bans that I have been seeing all over in different cities. I guess before too long cigarettes will be illegal.
I think its very hippocritical that the government makes loads of money from cigarette sales, but yet it seems as if they are trying to discourage smoking. If people want to do something, they'll pay for it no matter what the cost. If the government wanted to effectively discourage people from smoking or reduce the number of smokers, they could provide support groups, gum, or nicotine patches. I think if the cost of quitting smoking was cheaper, more people would do it. They also have to want to quit too.
It's the nanny state run amok. It will not save one single life.
I do not care for trivial laws but it is nice to be able to walk into a building and not have to endure a cloud of cigarette smoke. Smokers are inconsiderate and selfish.
...and you're not?
Having been a smoker in my past life, I take exception to your statement, Rev. I was an extremely courteous smoker when it was still legal to do so inside here. I would do everything I could to keep the smoke from my cigarette from drifting towards someone who wasn't smoking and more often than not I'd either sneak outside or to an out of the way area to smoke.
Praise the Lord that he's allowed me to kick this filthy and harmful habit, but it's folks like you saying that smokers are inconsiderate and selfish that make the rest of us look bad. Smokers realize that smoking is bad for them, they realize that it can harm others and for the most part, they WANT to quit and be more healthy, but they CANNOT break the chain of addiction that has them held prisoner.
Show a little compassion to these folks instead of spouting your drivel.
The altruistic left, who really WANT to ban all cigarettes and help those who still smoke to quit have all my support in their endeavors to do this, but I absolutely do NOT believe the way to do it is through taxing tobacco and making it illegal in certain areas.
The taxes are a tax on the lower-middle-class and the POOR, just like the lottery is. What a crock. You're ALL hypocrites... me included.
I smoked for 19 years. Anywhere from 2 to 3 packs a day depending on whether or not I was partying. You were the exception not the rule and it is not necessary for you to take my statement personally. Lighting anything on fire and intentionally inhaling the smoke from it is stupid. And forcing others to inhale their stupidity is well there are no words for it. The norm is the selfishness or there would be no demand for the laws.
The government should not be regulating at all whether people can smoke or not on private property.
I tend to agree with Ken. But, it sure is nice not to have to smell cigarette smoke while enjoying a meal in a resturant. It's sickening to smell. My nose itches and I can no longer enjoy my meal. So, I'll compromise and say that I'm glad for smoking bans.
I was glad that the law required restaurants required a non-smoking area. Actually, I always requested a "smoke free" section. Once a waitress told me she could not guarantee me smoke free- I then said I could not guarantee payment if there smoke came into my booth. She found me a table that kept me away from the smoke!.
However, the laws are getting a bit ridiculous. As a closet semi-libertarian, a person should have the right to smoke - as long as it does not interfere with others.
Lets change the story a bit. We all know that cars kill some 40,000 Americans each year. We are told that speed is a major problem (actually it is excessive speed ) So a group gets the (so called federal ) speed limit back down to 55 mph - then down to 50, then down to 45, then down to 40, then down to 30 - then down to 25. Would the lower speed limits save lives, of course, Would Americans put up with it. NO - NO - NO !
This is exactly what the anti smoking people have done. Some 40 years ago all they wanted was a warning on the cig packages that said " smoking MAY be hazardous to your health. Now, little by little they have consistently added more restrictions.
I hate the smell of the foul weed, but I certainly DO NOT have any desire for the govt to step in and declare a public ban on the stinkin' stuff. The choice should be left up to each individual business establishment. Then if the agony of the smoke overcomes the value of their service/product, I'll take my shekels elsewhere.
I smoked for some 20 years, and had no trouble at all quitting. Fact is, I quit, oh, probably 15-20 times before it "took".:thumbs:
Seriously, when I did finally take quitting seriously, I disposed of about 3/4 of a pack one day and haven't touched one OR had any desire for one since. God enabled me to give 'em up with absolutely no, nada, zilch, zero withdrawal symptoms. This was February of '82
However the sanctimonious attitude of some toward smoking tends to make the smoker go into DEFENSIVE mode and nothing is accomplished towards a solution.
Experienced this at work one day when one of the guys was really coming down hard on a couple of smokers. I had been a "tee-totaler" for a few years at this point, and did not enter into the fray, but the smokers were zealously defending their "right" to smoke. After the complainer left, both of the smokers did a 180 and began talking about how much they would love to kick the habit.
Human nature is a funny thing - confront harshly and you'll get resistance; confront calmly, and most of the time you'll get, at worst, amiable disagreement and many times full agreement.
Probably a lot depends on the culture you've grown up in also.
I'm stepping closer and closer to becoming a Libertarian with every post you make, Ken. I concur.
Oh my GOSH, SCB! You've just exposed the entire liberal (socialist) philosophy! Run, hide... they're coming to get you! *wink*
Hmmm... A soft answer turns away wrath? Is that what you're saying, JWP? Needless to say, what you've said warrants repeating.
In this day and age, smoking should not be allowed in public at all.
Slippery slope, Johnv. With the growing emphasis on fighting being overweight in this country, one day someone may day that "In this day and age, eating ice cream and candy should not be allowed in public at all".
Be careful what you wish for.
Yea I do not like rude inconsiderate and selfish smokers anymore than anyone else. But the government is not always the right answer although it is the always the easiest and takes less thought and effort.
My reasoning is one of consistency. It seems reasonable that the government can make it illegal to consume alcoholic beverages in public. It would therefore be consistent to have that same ban on the consumption of tobacco products in public.