|
|
|
|
|
Genrae
|
Joined: 11/10/2006
Msg: 26 | |
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 1:34:52 AM | This is going too far! No, I don't smoke, nor do I think it should be outlawed just because I choose not to. What's next-- soda, coffee-- tea-- alchohol (again)-- they're already trying to outlaw fat in foods. If they do that, I'm dead meat  cuz fat and coffee are my two vices. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 4:05:34 AM |
I don't know about "massively unhealthy"... you mean to tell me that breathing in (and not really breathing that much in, since you're outside) second hand smoke for what 10/15 mins is "massively unhealthy"? Come on! People really need to get a grip.
Relative to 15/30 minutes that I'm not breathing in the shit it's pretty damn unhealthy. This might be hard to understand for the people that voluntarily huff the stuff.
Lets really get to the point, it ****ing smells disgusting. If a significant number of people had a habit of shitting their pants and hanging out by bus stops, they'd probably put up "don't crap your pants" signs in the shelters too. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 6:00:34 AM | >>>Relative to 15/30 minutes that I'm not breathing in the shit it's pretty damn unhealthy.
But thats not what they're contesting- you said it was massively unhealthy- it isn't. It IS unhealthy, yes, but massively? If that were true, then you would see people dying in the streets after their second cigarette- not to mention you doubled the maximum number of minutes of exposure they used(15min), and turned their maximum into your minium
>>>Lets really get to the point, it ****ing smells disgusting.
Your comments are really confusing, and seem really misplaced- the OP is about the Government mandating what people do in their homes - you're discussing what people do at bus stops.
>>>If a significant number of people had a habit of shitting their pants and hanging out by bus stops, they'd probably put up "don't crap your pants" signs in the shelters too.
But should the Government be allowed to go into your home and charge you for crapping your pants in your own house? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 6:04:47 AM | >>>When I bought it, I never stated anywhere I was interested in inhaling tobacco smoke or that I enjoyed my place smelling like a smoky bar.
And what if the Condo across the way WANTED that? Why should my taxes go towards mandating your preferences, meanwhile that neighbor's taxes denies them their preferences? Isn't that self-righteous? | |
|
*Echo*
|
Joined: 2/19/2006
Msg: 30 | |
| |
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 6:56:01 AM | Really?
So why isn't the Government regulating what you eat? How many hours you stay up? When you go outside? There are literally millions of things I could list that, if done correctly, could effectively extend your life- but you're forgetting that you have freedom of choice, and have the freedom to choose to be unhealthy, reguardless of weither or not we pay taxes for healthcare
Its a slippery slope once you start federally mandating human behavior because the federal government could save money by denying you freedom. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 7:01:38 AM | But it's not the anti-smokers rights that are being curtailed, don't you see? It's only those evil smokers. Who are getting what they deserve.
That makes it different.  | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 7:41:50 AM | I am appalled at the people who show disdain for anti-smoking crusades and environmentalists or any other health-related organzition. This shows me the lack of respect for yourself and human health. The selfish act of lighting up a cancer causing cigarette despite those around you disgusts me. There should be more inside and outside bans to keep smokers and life threatening substances away from others. I dont want to breathe in someone else's cancer causing habit. I live in a condo and if I smelled someone else's carcinogenic smoke coming into my condo and threatening my health there would be hell to pay.
This is why our society is in the sad state it is in. People run amok doing drugs and smoking with the risk of harming other peoples lives. I think there should be a ban on anything that negatively effects human health and this includes radon, smoking, car fumes, certain kinds of pain, asbestos, andother potentially harmful substances that has the poetntial to ruin anothers life. I knew a guy who developed emphesema because he hung out with his smoking friends. He never smoked in his life.
ANYTHING that improves a persons health is positive. ANYTHING that discourages a persons health is negative. Even though I am not a liberal, tree-hugging, clean-thumping environmentalist I do very much support their positive causes.
You should be in favor of the anti-smoking crusade in apartments and condos and "green" crusades or anything that extends healthy life. For those of you who don't care and care more about lighting up cause you find it pleasureable----then you have disrespect for human life and dont care about your own health. I always thought smokers were anti-social types anyway. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 7:48:28 AM | | Bans negatively affect human health by making life insufferable. By your argument they should have a ban on banning things. Please do not confuse a human being with a hothouse tomato. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 8:00:07 AM | {quote]Bans negatively affect human health by making life insufferable. By your argument they should have a ban on banning things. Please do not confuse a human being with a hothouse tomato.
Control your urges and addictions and life won't be insufferable. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 8:12:12 AM | >>Control your urges and addictions and life won't be insufferable.
Did....did you just basically say obey me and you won't suffer?
Wheres freedom? Why cannot Tom Kat decide for himself on the issue? What makes your opinion and preference any more valid than his?
Also, I've noticed you made a point in your profile that you are a social drinker- how would you feel if liquor was banned for being negative on ones lifestyle, as some people once and no doubt still do feel? Would you support the Government protecting you from yourself from booze? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 8:22:02 AM | The worst thing that ban has done to our town is to put good businesses out of business. Because the law said they have to have "smoking rooms" where the heating/ac system is seperate and for most restaurants I recall that being about a $25,000 investment just to keep their current patrons.
So now on Nicollet Ave (AKA "Eat Street" because of the dozens of restaurants on it) there are a number of places out of business. I am talking places that were like institutions that one thought would never go out of business.
benefits of adopting smoke-free policies.
I think property owners get a discount from their insurance companies. I know the building behind me is smoke-free. Smoking is high amongst the causes of deaths lost due to fires.
When I was a smoker I never smoked in bed when I was tired. I would smoke in bed when I just woke up, though. I guess I just feel lucky I quit when I did. 11 years and 3 days ago.
But a lot of us native Minnesotans are puzzled with this and asking the other questions... alcohol, fat, etc? I think our current legislation acts like we're Las Vegas and we have to be "Family Friendly"... myself, I always thought the smokers should at least have the bars. But the legislation make those look more like restaurants than serve alcohol so they now are magically "family friendly"
I'm just guessing but now that I think of it a few years ago Rochester, Mn made the nations top ten places of where to live and raise a family. I will bet that bit of media publicity got stuck in the craw of our current legislators and they want to compete and get futher up that scale.
As for my own life. Even though there is a public ban on perfumes my neighbor across the hall leaves for evening parties and going clubbing with so much perfume on that even hours later if I walk into the hall it damn near gags me. I don't know how one woman can wear so much fragrance. Sometimes it's like I feel my sinuses slam shut just recoiling from exposure to that stuff.
How do you enforce that? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 8:38:52 AM |
I think there should be a ban on anything that negatively effects human health
That is one long list pal!
Alcohol
Fatty foods
Dangerous Sports
Volcanoes
Soda pop
Promiscues sex
Mold
Anger
After they take away smoker rights and they knock on your door, only to find something that negatively effects someones health we will see how ya feel! | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 8:46:52 AM | | so, let's get this straight. you are saying that mcdonalds should be illegal. you are saying that cars should be illegal. where the hell do you come up with such stupid shit? unless you can truthfully say that you NEVER eat fast food, which definitely will kill you, and that you never drive a car, because cars kill over 50,00 people a year in the u.s, every statement you made is hypocritcal at best, and just plain idiocy in the end. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 10:18:07 AM |
everybody's tax money goes to the health care and curing smoking related illnesses.
Simple solution for that.Tobacco taxes raise billions in revenue.Tobacco related health care costs billions.Apply tobacco revenue directly to tobacco related health care costs.Smokers pay it.They get the care.
The flaw here is the government won't be willing to "lose" those billions tobacco taxes add to general revenue.If they did,watch other taxes go up to make up the "shortfall".
I think there should be a ban on anything that negatively effects human health and this includes radon, smoking, car fumes, certain kinds of pain, asbestos, andother potentially harmful substances
The sun causes melanoma,better ban it.Cow flatulence contributes to global warming,better ban cows. Lightning strikes can kill or start fires,better ban lightning.You did say you want a ban on ANYTHING that negatively effects human health,right?
I always thought smokers were anti-social types anyway
That sounds like a derogatory statement aimed at a specific group of people in society.
So,your bigotry is acceptable.It's just what others do,say,or think that is unacceptable
bigotry-noun, plural -ries.
1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 11:18:41 AM | ahhh something else to **** and complain about..One of them anti smoking advocates ever comes to my apartment I work to pay over charged rent for thats heatened by OIL.(thats so healthy) I'd let them have their say while smoking a big fat joint , since cigs are so terrible! what? It's pretty clear cigs are getting worse then the 420.
Sounds a little BOGUS eh? Well so are these damn laws that are getting a bit ridiculous , Ok so I cant enjoy a cigarette out side at work now on breaks unless its in a smoky old smoke shack and were lucky to even have that ,A LOT of work places don't, or in someones car on the property, at a bar Even in a designated area , after I eat in a restaurant in a designated area they banned them too! I kinda respected the designated laws till they banned it out of inside public places altogether,NOW in your home.....?????? a little much...
If you don't like me cigarettes stay the hell away from me! I don't go around blowing smoke in ppls faces ! thats just rude, I actually have a lot of respect for non smokers and will go out of my way not to smoke around them if I'm in their company , its too bad were gettin treated like shit cus we're practicing something that was fine untill the govenment could see they can make a killing taxing us out the ***hole and 12.00 a pack of cigs in Canada is nonsense , its a shame because they are only 3.00 without all them taxes . wheres the other 9.00 going??? certainly not to cancer research , they should put the money where their mouth is atleaste...
I know cigarettes are unhealthy DUHHHH, yes they stink, yes they can cause cancer but Cigarettes are not the only things that cause health problems! I need not say anymore about that,I don't need some health freak pushing that crap down my throat. I'm WELL AWARE, but look at whats NOT illegal in this world thats doing more harm. people are just not getting the big picture and blaming the little guy . so tis is life..carry on. the freedom of choice now is bullshit were puppets, playing into the world of chaos.
I think I'll goto MacDonald's buy a super greasy Big Mac (but I can get a salad ) , downed with a quart of LIGHT rum , go gamble a bit and go see some entertainment in a bar I'll probally miss cuz I'm such a menace to society, looking to get arrested because I'm under the influence on the street outside the bar smoking them awful cigarettes geeeshe give me a break!
People need to light up some (no pun intended)
peace | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 11:59:08 AM | Smoking bans in public places. Or where minors (under 18) are allowed.
I am for these smoking by-laws. If you are going to ban smoking in public places. The also ban the selling of tobacco and tobacco products in public places, Or where minors are allowed. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 12:03:38 PM | It has absolutely nothing to do with health.
It has everything to do with political power and money.
As a previous poster said above, the big pharmaceutical companies push anti-smoking laws to get more people to buy nicotine products. Companies like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson sell more nicotine to the public than the cigarette companies do.
Most of the anti-smoking crusaders who go around the country pushing their agendas either work for or are heavily invested in the pharmaceuticals. They don't care about your health, they care about the return on their stock portfolios.
Why is there literally NO mention of Marijuana as smoking ? Why is smoking Marijuana becoming more acceptable but tobacco isn't ? How many people complain about tobacco yet have no problem with smoking Marijuana ? Is the smell of Marijuana perfume and not offensive to the nose ?
The pharmaceutical companies know that when Marijuana becomes legal it will be under the guise of a drug and they will be selling it as such in the drug stores not smoke shops . | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 4:04:26 PM | this isn't completely on topic.....but i always got a kick outta how you can block ppl who smoke from contacting you on here.
obviously, i smoke...so i found out the hard way. heh.
but where's my button to block single moms from contacting me?
in general though, i am a very "polite" smoker. however, trying to tell me i can't smoke in my own home should i choose to? that's insane. and it won't just stop with renters. it will become an HOA clause as well. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 4:30:28 PM | Jipperly and Wolves-Lower to address your arguments.
Did....did you just basically say obey me and you won't suffer?
Wheres freedom? Why cannot Tom Kat decide for himself on the issue? What makes your opinion and preference any more valid than his?
Also, I've noticed you made a point in your profile that you are a social drinker- how would you feel if liquor was banned for being negative on ones lifestyle, as some people once and no doubt still do feel? Would you support the Government protecting you from yourself from booze?
Jipperly, freedom is given to citizens who obey laws. Which means the right to live within a moral framework, not harming someone, not engaging in reckless behavior that has the potential to affect a persons health and everyday living. Safety and obeying the law should come first in everyones life. Unfortunately thats not reality.
Should a drunk driver have the "freedom" to drive while intoxicated while putting other lives in danger? Should two consenting adults have the "freedom" to have sex in their front yard across the street from your house so your children can see?
What if you are trying to sell your home in a neighborhood and you're asking 200k, and your Joe Blow neighbor likes to dump his garbage in his front lawn, leaves his rusty old cars jacked up on blocks, and never cuts his lawn. Should he have the freedom to do as he pleases? What if his current sloppy lifestyle made your home value go down 50k? Now you can only get 150k for your house instead of 200k. Does Joe Blow still have the freedom to dump his garbage in his own lawn despite lowering your home value? Moreover, this does happen and it happens more than you would expect. This is why we have laws. If everyone had the "freedom" to do as they pleased then we would live in a more destructive, harmful and chaotic society. Laws keep a persons "freedom" in check. Freedoms have boundaries as you witnessed in my above examples.
As you an see, FREEDOMS HAVE BOUNDARIES. Not smoking in my personal space is my boundary. Smoking in your personal space is your boundary---as long as it doesnt intrude on my well-being.
So, where is your freedom? It depends on where you draw the line. It also depends where the government draws their lines for whatever reason they see fit. I stay on the side of anti-smokers. TomKat is giving his valid opinion and Im also counter-debating with mine. My opinion counts such as much as his does.
Secondly, I am a rare social drinker. It means I drink maybe a beer every couple of weeks for social bonding when out on the town.) If the government put a ban on alcohol----guess what? I would start drinking water or O'Doules. Alcohol never really appealed to me. I could leave it and never touch it again. I have gone years without a single drop of alcohol because I had been so busy in the past. More important things----such as my responsibilities take precedence over drinking a beer.
So yes, I would support the government from protecting others and myself from booze especially if alcoholic deaths increased.
Wolves-Lower
That is one long list pal!
Alcohol, Fatty foods, Dangerous Sports, Volcanoes, Soda pop, Promiscues sex,
Mold, Anger. After they take away smoker rights and they knock on your door, only to find something that negatively effects someones health we will see how ya feel!
In fact, I can address each one of those you listed. I rarely drink alcohol, I rarely eat fatty foods, I don't engage in extreme or dangerous sports--basketball isnt as dangerous although their are risks involved with the knees and jumping, volcanoes are rare but happen in the northwest and among other places, I never drink soda pop at all, I engage in sex with one partner only, I kill mold with bleach if I ever saw it but I dont have any mold in my home--its too clean, and I control my anger through objective and rational confrontation. If that doesnt relieve my anger then I engage in something positive like exercise.
Hope these answered your questions. You guys have been great. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 7:26:57 PM | First of all, the person that compared drinking and smoking, um dude, do me a favor and put down the bottle, didn't you know drinking and typing is illegal...
Back on topic, All I gots too say is, there is nothing in the world thats better then a good ole' marlboro after dinner, with coffee in the morning, watching TV, or that ciggy while your on the john, come on you know you do it, and most of all that greatest cigarette of all, that one after an good romp in the hay...Now are the socialistic governments that want too regulate everything gonna want too regulate what I watch on tv, or ban me from having my morning coffee cause of the caffeine, or tell me and my lady that sex on the dining room table is unsafe...Face it folks slowly but surely if we let these politician keep passing laws, we will all be living in a communistic world... | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/13/2007 8:03:56 PM | >>>Jipperly, freedom is given to citizens who obey laws.
Actually, given you're American, this is clearly not true given your document of rights- according to the American Declaration, rights are not given by governments, but are entitled to all humans, bestowed up them by God("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights")
Of course, looking aside that- so you're saying that we are to accept all laws, and those who disagree do not deserve rights?
What if you were in Germany in 1939? Would you agree with the Holocaust? Or is it completely possible that there is such a thing as a bad law? Governments will not always be right, and its the duty of the people to question all laws
>>>Should a drunk driver have the "freedom" to drive while intoxicated while putting other lives in danger?
We are discussing private property rights- the road is public property, since we all pay for it, and is subject to government control.
>>>Should two consenting adults have the "freedom" to have sex in their front yard across the street from your house so your children can see?
Prove that its harmful.
>>>What if you are trying to sell your home in a neighborhood and you're asking 200k, and your Joe Blow neighbor likes to dump his garbage in his front lawn, leaves his rusty old cars jacked up on blocks, and never cuts his lawn. Should he have the freedom to do as he pleases?
YES!
If you don't like what Joe Blow is doing, buy Joe Blow's house from the bank(as he clearly is on his 4th mortgage) and THEN you have every right to control his property.
Just because you don't like what your neighbor is doing doesn't mean you have the right to have them imprisoned. I hate where my neighbor puts his table- it makes him look like a jackass- should he have to pay the Government $300 for it?
What if I decided that, because I hate my neighbor, I think I'd like a Wendy's restaurant moreso?(those Baconators are awesome!) Do I have the right to take their property for them? Even if I believed that it what was best for them?
>>> Moreover, this does happen and it happens more than you would expect.
Yea! Vindictive people, spreading their....poverty.....disgusting....
>>> Laws keep a persons "freedom" in check.
And what freedoms are you suggesting need to be kept "in check"? Isn't keeping freedoms in check.....anti-freedom?
>>> Smoking in your personal space is your boundary---as long as it doesnt intrude on my well-being.
...
Oh wait...now I get it....
lol....
You didn't read the OP, did you?
This is exactly what it is about- personal space- if you own a property, its your personal space- just like how you're not entitled to break into peoples homes and move peoples furniture around, you are not entitled to demand that no one smoke in your presence.
You do not have the right to demand that all smoking stops within 10 feet of you. If people choose to smoke on their property, its their choice.
>>> My opinion counts such as much as his does.
But while Tom Kat's opinion allows both himself and yourself to express your opinion in action, you strongly oppose him expressing his beliefs in action, while demanding your opinion be law. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/14/2007 6:04:28 AM | I don't smoke, unless seriously drunk, which is to say, its rare. My mother is suffering from cancer and has for some time - we know its smoke related.
that said however.....I think the anti smoking hysteria has gone too far - starting with the lawsuits. Where I live in the peoples republik of MA, all restaraunt smoking has been banned and city ordnances are pushing smokers farther and farther away from eateries.
ITs too much. Smokers have become the last acceptable group that can be attacked and discriminated against.
I think we have bigger problems to be concerned with. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/14/2007 6:41:45 AM | again on the bus stop issue...
Funny thing is, I very Rarely smoke while waiting for the bus. That's because I get my fix inside my home before taking the bus, and I also get my fix on my way to the metro from work. Now when the law forbids me from smoking in my own home, perhaps I will have no choice but to have my fix at the bus stop.
As for the person who's condo was infested with someone else's smoke... perhaps there should also be a ban on cheaply built, poorly insulated condo buildings... | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/14/2007 7:09:49 AM | >>>As for the person who's condo was infested with someone else's smoke... perhaps there should also be a ban on cheaply built, poorly insulated condo buildings...
I wonder why anyone would argue that the non-smoker is being victimized....i mean, are these people incapable of setting the terms of their lease? And if they choose to ignore things that they feel are important, why does the Government have to protect them? If its important to me that my neighbors not have large dogs, I can certainly bring it up during the lease negotiations- why do we need federal ligation to protect people from not protecting their own preferences? Where does personal responsibility come into this equation? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
