|
|
|
|
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/8/2007 2:41:09 PM | It would be very easy to pass a law mandating that bars declare themselves either smoking or non-smoking.
The reason they didn't is because very few bars would have gone non-smoking and the anti-smoking crusaders couldn't stand for that.
They like getting drunk and destroying their brain cells with alcohol. They wont allow anyone to keep them from driving afterward and getting killed or killing someone else. But damn if sombody smokes a cigarette in that bar ! | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/8/2007 4:21:41 PM | I can remember when the no smoking bans were being passed.
Even when when some places went smoke free.
Like McDonnalds. They were lossing customers, So they changed thier Advertising. It was geared at kids before. They changed it to Adults. How many times do you see Ronald McDonald in commericials after they went smoke free ?
First one: just divied the place into two sections.
Smoking section had more people.
Second one: There had to be so many non smoking to smoking.
Smoking section had more people.
Third one: Non smoking area had to be bigger than smoking.
Smoking section had more people.
Fourth one: They had to put up walls, right to the roof, between the two areas. Smoking section had more people. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/8/2007 4:38:22 PM |
No it wouldn't... It would just include childrens right to not be exposed to a controled poison. You mean like Sodium Benzoate, which is in most soft drinks, and which combines with Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), which is present in the blood, to form Benzene, an extremely hazardous poison? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/8/2007 5:09:04 PM | | ^^^ 100% Dead on. If softdrinks can take rust off a metal bumper, then what the hell do you think it is doing to your body, but i'm yet to hear any softdrink companies getting pressured by any anti-group to find alternitives to what they are putting in their softdrinks. | |
|
| |
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/8/2007 5:44:28 PM | Don't forget the pthalates and bisphenols.
Meet them at your door with a Cuban Churchil ablaze, just like I keep an Iron Maiden t-shirt in the desk near the door for the JW's and the Mormons, seeing Eddie with 666 emblazoned on the front does wonders. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/8/2007 9:23:02 PM | Stoney,
I am NOT turning a blind eye to abuse.
I do not oppose trying to end smoking around kids.
Earlier you said you don't think it's harmful if an adult has an alcoholic drink around kids. That's where I got the idea to throw an absurd accusation toward you about the kids with an alcoholic parent. It was just as absurd as you asking me if I thought it was ok to have arsenic and a loaded gun in the house.
What I do oppose is a LAW that tells parents they can't use a legal substance in their own home. I oppose such a law. That's it. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/9/2007 7:08:36 AM |
Earlier you said you don't think it's harmful if an adult has an alcoholic drink around kids. That's where I got the idea to throw an absurd accusation toward you about the kids with an alcoholic parent.
Point well noted, but you must see there is a difference between having a couple of drinks and someone who abuses alcohol at the expense of a loved one just as there is a difference between someone smoking outdoors , away from their children and someone forcing them to smoke, which is what is happening when yo smoke with your children indooors... That's what this is about, see? Abusing your crutch and at the same time abusing the child.
What I do oppose is a LAW that tells parents they can't use a legal substance in their own home. I oppose such a law. That's it.
What about the law against smoking crack in front of your children? | |
|
JWA
|
Joined: 5/21/2005
Msg: 159 | |
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/9/2007 7:38:33 AM | The sooner all smoking is banned within smelling/inhaling range of those who wish and choose to NOT suck that crap into our lungs the better for everyone. Most smokers cry and whine how they want to quit so if that's really the case wouldn't more bans be beneficial?
Smokers do have a right to smoke but those "rights" end at my nose. Why should I be forced to elude that stench because they can't or won't keep their little noxious clouds all to themselves? Despite what other products are mentioned as being at least equally injurious to people (softdrinks here) those claims seem to miss or ignore PERSONAL consumption of a Coke does NOT have an accompanying cloud. If smoking could be contained only to the smoker then I could care less how often they partook.
Yes drunk drivers are a real problem but that is created entirely because law enforcement does not have more harsh penalties for convictions. I believe Germany, if caught drunk driving, you lose your license for life or a significant time. In the USA vehicular homicide even while DUI carries a somewhat insignificant penalty with some of those offenders receiving nothing more than "community service"--those with the big bucks to buy their way out of it. But this was about smokers..................
I hate 'em-------more accurately I hate the effect they have on my environment and personal space and they want to keep hiding behind that "it's my right" BS. It was a choice they made to start and like it or not the tide is turning more and more against them so they'll either have to co-operate or find themselves truly outside of many laws designed to keep them in check.
How's this for input? LOL | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/9/2007 7:38:59 AM | I believe the law against smoking crack is not exclusive to children. You are legally not allowed to smoke that anywhere ...
What we are debating here is a law being passed about a legal substance .. which you would not be allowed to smoke INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME.
Take the smoking out of the equation and take a look at the precedent it will set. You will basically be giving me (a stranger to you) the rights to own the keys of YOUR home.
Noone here is debating that smoking is bad. We all know it is. But so are the drugs used in food, which can also be seen as child abuse. Do children know how to read a label? Do they know and can they choose to say no when parents give them kraft dinner? How far do you think this will go? Will you be able to handle it? Will you find it constitutional for people to come into your home and take your children away from you because the guests you invited to dinner brought over ho ho's? Or when someone demands you turn off your car because the toxins are polluting his/her/their children's breathing space?
Know when to draw the line, would you? Otherwise go talk to your local government and make it illegal right across the board. just like crack ...
oh and just curious .. how does one determine who's nose is more important? I figure it's only important when it's outside my living space. (unless you bring little league over .. but that would be common sense ... ) | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/9/2007 10:55:02 AM | Stone wrote:
Point well noted
That's all you had to say. However it was followed by "but.....yada yada yada" which totally negated your very first sentence.
And there you go again, Stoney. Trying to twist my point of view to fit your argument. Or perhaps you have a case of CRS. That's Creative Reading Syndrome. I intentionally twisted yours to get your attention and it worked. It exposed you as someone who can dish it out but you can't take it. And now you're doing it again!
I guess I have to explain myself once again:
I said I'm against a law that prohibits parents from using a LEGAL substance in their own home.
Trying to use "smoking crack in front of your children" is a weak, lame, and empty attempt at trying to debate your point of view. Tobacco is legal. Crack is not. I will no longer reply to any more of your posts. You will not reply to mine without trying to twist it into something I didn't say.
One more thing. I don't even smoke cigarettes. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/9/2007 11:37:18 AM | ...Why should I be forced to elude that stench because they can't or won't keep their little noxious clouds all to themselves?
...those claims seem to miss or ignore PERSONAL consumption of a Coke does NOT have an accompanying cloud.
This is a perfect example that its less a concern for ones health as it is a knee jerk Pavlov's dog response. When one merely SEES someone else smoking anymore, that triggers a response - not the smoke itself. As you grimace & wave your hand in front of your face in the mere presence of a smoker its obvious to all that there's no thick cloud of smoke present. Its merely a consious public display in order to show your support for your stance.
...The sooner all smoking is banned within smelling/inhaling range of those who wish and choose to NOT suck that crap into our lungs the better for everyone.
...Smokers do have a right to smoke but those "rights" end at my nose.
Likewise any scent your body, clothing, automobile, etc emits should also be equally monitored and restricted in the spirit of fair play so others have the same rights as you. How is 1 scent more important than others??
Please become enlightened on the definition of 2ND HAND SMOKE.
Merely SMELLING cigarette smoke is not the same thing as 2nd hand smoke...thats only a few parts per million....not much different than the scent in the air of someones freshly shampooed hair or their cologne.
But anti smokers like the above poster dont know the difference. It fits their selfish agenda so to them its one in the same & therin lies the problem.
I am not a cigarette smoker, therefore I can walk into a building, or someones house, etc, & detect the smell of cigarette smoke the same way an anti smoker does. THAT DOESNT MEAN ITS 2ND HAND SMOKE. Its merely an odor. I find it baffling that anti smokers go haywire over it. A smoker's home ALWAYS smells like cigarette smoke, even after theyve been on holiday for a week, but upon entering that same home after being vacant for a week, a non smoker will gag & rant & do all the obvious demeaning displays & gestures. Its hilarious.
The lines have become blurred by anti-smokers concerning 2nd hand smoke. 2ND HAND SMOKE, & merely just SMELLING SMOKE are 2 completely different things.
Studies done that anti smokers cling to as gospel deal with true recognised 2nd hand smoke statistics.....which is a suspended particulate count of several hundred parts per million of cigarette smoke, over a certain duration of time. It is a long term exposure to a concentrated amount.
True 2nd hand smoke can be seen as a smokey haze in a poorly ventilated room. One needs to be exposed months/years to this several hours a day. That is where the 2nd hand smoke stats come from. Nobody here is exposed to this anymore. If they are, they are the only ones who have a legitmate complaint. Everyone else is a bandwagon jumper.
Stonestounge is the only anti smoker making this valid point. Every other anti smoker is comically diluting it.
This is what I see as one of the problems created by a brainwashing agenda...a non smoker SEES or SMELLS cigarette smoke & equates it with 2ND HAND SMOKE. True 2nd hand smoke is an entity, not simply a scent or unfavourable visual on ones part.
I hate 'em-------
This sums up the mentality and accompanying theme of the crusade nicely. Thank you. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/9/2007 11:58:05 AM | I do not want to smell or suck in the known poisons and carcinogens that are emmited from the tailpipes of cars.
Let's ban them too.
Not to mention the destruction of the Environment. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/10/2007 8:15:31 PM | One thing to ban smoking at places like family resturants, but banning smoking in bars acrossed the line. Smoking bans just an excuse to tax you more indirectly by hiring more thugs to enforce nanny rules.
These greedy trail lawyers like Chesi had a piece in the billion dollar settlement, then add in big pharma likes to peddle thier anti-tabacco drugs that help reduce nicotine cravings, but cause another danger from the drugs of depression occuring because of cutting off opiod receptors.
Realize smoking been around for centuries, and banning smoking in condos and apartments is bad precedent. These zelots will not stop at tabacco products they will go after your SUV, childern, your head of lettuce. Liberals wonder why working class males never vote democrat anymore its oblivous we know what banning smoking leads too more goverment control of private lives. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/11/2007 6:47:33 AM | What we are debating here is a law being passed about a legal substance .. which you would not be allowed to smoke INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME.
You do realise that tobacco kills more people than crack right? Screw the legalities for Christ sake! This is poisoning your own children in their own home!
Take the smoking out of the equation and take a look at the precedent it will set. You will basically be giving me (a stranger to you) the rights to own the keys of YOUR home.
That's silly... Alcohol is legal but if you make your kid drink it, you are crossing the line... Same thing with tobacco smoke... Your paranoia of Big Brother is clouding your judgement in my opinion.
That's all you had to say. However it was followed by "but.....yada yada yada" which totally negated your very first sentence.
Your point? As far as I can see, your point is to react against my point... You either don't understand where I'm coming from or you attack differing points of view without trying to understand them... Either way, you aren't convincing.
And there you go again, Stoney. Trying to twist my point of view to fit your argument. Or perhaps you have a case of CRS. That's Creative Reading Syndrome. I intentionally twisted yours to get your attention and it worked. It exposed you as someone who can dish it out but you can't take it. And now you're doing it again!
Haha!!! Like I said before, your metaphors need to make sense and be in context with my argument (which they aren't) if I'm to take it... You are a funny one tho!
I guess I have to explain myself once again:
I said I'm against a law that prohibits parents from using a LEGAL substance in their own home.
And I'm against losers who think it's ok to smoke with their kids in the room just because the law is an ass!
Trying to use "smoking crack in front of your children" is a weak, lame, and empty attempt at trying to debate your point of view. Tobacco is legal. Crack is not. I will no longer reply to any more of your posts.
How surprising... You have no intelligent argument so you run away from the issue.
You will not reply to mine without trying to twist it into something I didn't say.
My metaphors work and I've showed how... All yours do is try to say I think abuse of one kind is ok because I'm against another.
One more thing. I don't even smoke cigarettes.
Lawdy frikin' daw!
Now honestly... Ask yourselves one question and if you don't know the answer ask a child in question... "Do the children being forced to inhale second hand smoke consent or have a choice?"
If they do not, guess what?
That is child abuse! | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/11/2007 9:07:25 AM | Stone, you did it again!!! I have to retract what I said earlier in not responding to any more of you posts. *counting to 10..............ok I'm calm now*
Your quote:
And I'm against losers who think it's ok to smoke with their kids in the room just because the law is an ass!
How many times do I have to repeat myself, Stone? Read over all of my posts and you won't find in any of them where I have said that it's ok for parents to smoke in the same room as their children. Not ONCE did I say that and in fact I have continued to say the opposite. Yet again and again you try to twist my words (and others') into something we didn't say.
I have said I'm against a LAW that prohibits the use of a LEGAL substance in one's own home. I don't want big brother in my home or yours. That's fascism. Just remember every time we let our government gain even just a wee bit of power over us we then have relinquished that power to them. The politically correct movement (fascism, if you will) is alive, well and strong. And they are sly. Little by little they take our rights and our freedoms and our liberties and if we don't stand up against them one day we'll be trapped. And that's not a metaphor. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/11/2007 10:15:50 AM | My metaphors work and I've showed how... All yours do is try to say I think abuse of one kind is ok because I'm against another
Unfortunately it is true. Since you are riding the coattails of the anti smoking crusade, you are, by proxy, saying it is OK, because they see tobacco as the only evil - not Twinkies.
You are doing nothing to rectify this. Actually by pinning your tail on the anti smoking crusade donkey, you only fuel this philosophy and strengthen them, at the cost of what you say otherwise.
Again, if anti smokers are going to use childrens' health as a power point, I expect a comprehensive approach to solving ALL these problems concerning children collectively - especially the ones they themselves are causing. There is strength in numbers. Dividing and separating these issues only exposes one's selfish agenda, which is a hypocritical double standard. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/11/2007 5:00:47 PM | Anti-Smoking crusaduers have money to fight bans because of greedy trail lawyers period. Childern are used as poltical ploy to push further goverment control on adults. If it was just about banning smoking in public places, but thier something more diabolical about this agenda than banning smoking in public places. First, start to ban it restuarants, then it the workplace, then it bars it leads more goverment control. Second, they started to tax tabacco heavily to fund healthcare for childern divide smokers against childern that need insurance. Therefore, the goverment plays the two groups as poltical ploys to earn more jobs for cronies, and govt hire thugs to give handouts to ensure reelection at the county, state, provincal levels of goverment.
Third, issuse with banning smoking is it leads to other indirect regulations, and rules to enforce smoking bans in place that requires higher taxes to enforce. Enforce it you when need to hire more goverment breaucrats at union wages of 50k a person, and then pay an extra 5k in healthcare benefits to them.
Finally, some liberals make me puke because are elitist think social engineering will help humankind. Historically, when the nannies will be driven back like occured during prohibtion in the early 20th century.  | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/11/2007 7:31:50 PM | To the poster who quoted me ... I have no issues with Big Brother because I know I have choices, believe it or not.
I also have no children therefore I can smoke in my home if I so choose. When I am not allowed to do this, I will take my life and choices into my own hands (as I do now) and go to a place that suits the life I am living, at this given moment. If that changes, I will do it again. Unlike you, I will not force my fellow man/neighbour/etc. to be like me.
Government represents the people; the minute it stops representing me, I will choose another one. It is that simple. I won't blame non-smokers for this choice because at the end of the day, you can rant and rave .. I still run my own life.
good bye and enjoy the rest of this pointless 'debate' ..
p.s. keep your kids away from my smoke. they are your responsibility; deal with it this way, until they pass the LAW that won't allow any kind of smoke anywhere. or go live on an island (just not the one I've moved to). | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/12/2007 6:39:33 AM | How many times do I have to repeat myself, Stone? Read over all of my posts and you won't find in any of them where I have said that it's ok for parents to smoke in the same room as their children. Not ONCE did I say that and in fact I have continued to say the opposite. Yet again and again you try to twist my words (and others') into something we didn't say.
Why the heck are you taking it so personally? It is nothing against what you do to yourself, but what you force on others... I don't want to conform you of your vices whatever they may be... Yes, you have the right to smoke in your own home unless it goes against the rights of others... I am still trying to quit myself so I am hardly an anti-smoking crusader by any means... I am not attacking you, all I am saying is that it is wrong to expose someone to poison against their will... You can dismiss this by saying their is already poison in the air, but that is kinda my point... One problem at a time... Again, I am not for a law saying that you can't smoke in your own home, ok?
What I am for is a law that says it is wrong to expose children to cigarette smoke... Period.
Unfortunately it is true. Since you are riding the coattails of the anti smoking crusade, you are, by proxy, saying it is OK, because they see tobacco as the only evil - not Twinkies.
See? You need to prioritize... Getting young under- developed lungs away from cancerous smoke is more important than boo-hooing some extremists.
You are doing nothing to rectify this. Actually by pinning your tail on the anti smoking crusade donkey, you only fuel this philosophy and strengthen them, at the cost of what you say otherwise.
I don't believe so... The children are more important than our egos... I'm not against someone smoking, I'm against someone forcing someone else to smoke!
Again, if anti smokers are going to use childrens' health as a power point, I expect a comprehensive approach to solving ALL these problems concerning children collectively - especially the ones they themselves are causing. There is strength in numbers. Dividing and separating these issues only exposes one's selfish agenda, which is a hypocritical double standard.
You are clouding the issue again... Are you trying to minimalize the problem? If you try to do everything all at once, nothing ever gets done... It's better to focus on one problem at a time... It has nothing to do with some weirdo aganda... It has everything to do with protecting freedoms... You think I'm trying to force something on those who wish to force something on the helpless? Then yes... I wish to force non-forcing... There is no double standard here... You have the right to smoke up until you are forcing someone else to smoke... What is so bad about that?
Little by little they take our rights and our freedoms and our liberties and if we don't stand up against them one day we'll be trapped. And that's not a metaphor.
Yes, but at the same time, we can't allow these freedoms to cause undue suffering to others... Your freedoms should only stop where anothers begins... You know? The Golden Rule? Do onto others and all that?
To the poster who quoted me ... I have no issues with Big Brother because I know I have choices, believe it or not.
Did not mean to offend... I find it easier to debate if I highlight what I'm debating... It eliminates the want to back-peddle.
I also have no children therefore I can smoke in my home if I so choose.
Correct.
Unlike you, I will not force my fellow man/neighbour/etc. to be like me.
It isn't about being like me... Like I need the hassle... It's about not taking the rights of children under the age of being able to live on their own into account!
Government represents the people; the minute it stops representing me, I will choose another one. It is that simple. I won't blame non-smokers for this choice because at the end of the day, you can rant and rave .. I still run my own life.
They represent all the people... Even the ones too young to choose their residence... Run your life by allmeans... Just don't put anothers health in jeopardy and we're good.
good bye and enjoy the rest of this pointless 'debate' ..
Toodles!
| |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/12/2007 6:49:50 AM | >>>One problem at a time...
So why aren't you upfront about your intentions? If you intend to make cigarettes illegal in your home because they may harm others and they have a right to clear air, then clearly you must be against things like cars, and electricity? If children have a right to clear air, then why should my neighbor have the freedom to attack my right by driving a car to work? Doesn't Your freedoms should only stop where anothers begins? If you're against parents harming their children slowly by poor actions, then why aren't you reminding people that you intend to control what people eat one day, since parents can equally do the same with poor eating habits?
What you're arguing is a slippery slope. You cannot argue one without one day being exposed to the exact same argument against other things the next, like poor eating habits and poor air quality exposure.
>>>Again, I am not for a law saying that you can't smoke in your own home, ok?
What I am for is a law that says it is wrong to expose children to cigarette smoke... Period.
And if a parent chooses to smoke in the presence of their child in their own property.....would that be illegal? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/12/2007 7:05:22 AM | So why aren't you upfront about your intentions? If you intend to make cigarettes illegal in your home because they may harm others and they have a right to clear air, then clearly you must be against things like cars, and electricity?
I'm being quite up front with my intentions... Personally, no... I don't like cars, but I see the necessity of them and we're working on making them safer.
Doesn't Your freedoms should only stop where anothers begins?
That's entirely my point, my good fellow... Entirely my point!
If you're against parents harming their children slowly by poor actions, then why aren't you reminding people that you intend to control what people eat one day, since parents can equally do the same with poor eating
Who's to say I don't? This is not a thread on the Feast versus the Famine(which is the root of obesity) but a thread on tobacco smoke... There is no necessity for cigarettes therefor there is no justification for hazardously exposing children to them.
What you're arguing is a slippery slope. You cannot argue one without one day being exposed to the exact same argument against other things the next, like poor eating habits and poor air quality exposure.
Well that's the key to it all... In order for somone to be nailed by such a law as this, the one being forced to endure the smoke would have to exercise their right to complain about it... All we'd have to do is make that option available on kids help phone... In the situation of air exposure and eating habits, now that people are exercising their right to complain, things are getting noticed and are being worked on more now than ever before.
And if a parent chooses to smoke in the presence of their child in their own property.....would that be illegal?
Only if it was in a confined space.
p.s. keep your kids away from my smoke. they are your responsibility; deal with it this way, until they pass the LAW that won't allow any kind of smoke anywhere. or go live on an island (just not the one I've moved to).
Oh, I'll keep them away all right! By putting your smoke where the sun don't shine if it threatens to go into their lungs... Keep to the open and we're good.
Protective of children? Go figure!
Gods, some people are selfish! | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/12/2007 7:23:49 AM | >>>but I see the necessity of them and we're working on making them safer.
Please- there are other modes of transportation- you're honestly going to argue that children should not be exposed to harmful air without a choice one minute, but argue another minute that it is completely okay to expose children to harmful air without a choice because the alternative is inconvenient?
I don't own or drive a car- I don't see it as necessary at all- doesn't the fact that I exist completely make your claims that cars are necessary null and void?
>>> There is no necessity for cigarettes therefor there is no justification for hazardously exposing children to them.
And there is no necessity for McDonald's 3 nights a week- but I am sure as hell that there are families who do that. There is no necessity for each house to own 2 or 3 cars, or even own a single hummer, and for the most part federally mandated car pooling would by far cut down on poor air quality- but you're not preaching that- why not? If your stance can clearly apply to other situations with negative repercussions, isn't there then something wrong with your stance?
>>> This is not a thread on the Feast versus the Famine(which is the root of obesity) but a thread on tobacco smoke...
Regardless, the comparison between the Government controlling what you do in your home and how you travel/what you eat does exist , and the justification for it is identical to your argument for banning smoking in homes. You cannot deny this- it is the exact same argument, and thus if you are to be consistent on your beliefs, you must believe further government control is necessary for the world you hope for.
>>>... All we'd have to do is make that option available on kids help phone...
So, teach children to report their parents to the state?
Have you ever read 1984?
>>>Only if it was in a confined space.
So you wish to ban smoking in homes that have children in it. And there is only one way the government can do that, and it is through the government watching your actions in your home. Don't dance around it- be clear about your intentions. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/12/2007 7:31:51 AM | You do not understand... There are only so many ways I can spell this out to you... By bringing up other issues you are only clouding this one... I don't see a necessity for cars myself either except that others do... I don't drive either so your personal attacks are really getting old... If you have any intelligent debate for this topic, bring it, but if you want to muddle the issue with other issues, you will never get to the bottom of anything.
So you wish to ban smoking in homes that have children in it. And there is only one way the government can do that, and it is through the government watching your actions in your home. Don't dance around it- be clear about your intentions.
You aren't even reading my posts... The government does not need to monitor your actions at home for crying out loud! All they have to do is pass the law and give the people an option to report the abuse... They don't have T.V. screens to make sure you don't hit your kids, but it's against the law.
I'm still waiting for a real argument that isn't rooted in paranoid fantasy.
*EDIT* Or political conspiracy(for Hozo)... Not that I don't buy into some, just that they waste time sometimes. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/12/2007 10:53:22 AM | Jiperly asked...
And if a parent chooses to smoke in the presence of their child in their own property.....would that be illegal?
Stonestongue replied:
Only if it was in a confined space.
This is where the crux of my arguement evolves...it has nothing to do with conspiricies, or the like, but has everything to do with the crusade and the crusaders' blind ambition coupled with apathetic ignorance. The devil is in these very details; always was, and always has been. This is a very pure example of what I am arguing:
Using this specific example posted here, go back to page 1 of this thread. This thread is about banning smoking in apartments mainly. Why?? Because anti-smokers can smell smoke from others in the complex.
They extrapolate this into 2nd hand smoke throughout the entire building, of which it is only a scent, and NOT 2nd hand smoke, therefore the proposed ban.
The 2nd hand smoke you see a child breathing in a closed room with a smoker is the SAME what a crusader sees when they smell that faint smell in a block of flats.
Since it is now and forever etched into their minds that they themselves are breathing 2nd hand smoke, they seek to ban any and all sources of tobacco smoke.
So again, back to what Jiperly asked:
And if a parent chooses to smoke in the presence of their child in their own property.....would that be illegal?
Because of this slash and burn mentality, YES, it would be illegal, because, contrary to what you assure us, which you said:
Only if it was in a confined space.
The confined space would not even matter at all. ANY smoking within ANY walls would be illegal. THIS is my arguement. Again, you are aiding and abbetting those who wish the total elimination of tobacco from society, even though you say you oppose that idea.
There is no middle ground here for you or me, as there is no middle ground for smokers. A full tilt crusade is in progress against tobacco and smokers, whether they smoke in front of you, a child, or in the middle of a field alone.
You either are allied with them in preserving their rights, or you are not. It is that simple. It has become a black and white issue now, much like American politics. Are ye Democrate, or are ye Republikan? Those are the real choices, and whichever side you ally yourself with is the side that gains from your support.
As a non smoker also, I ally myself with the likes of jiperly, et. al., because we see where this is heading. I only have 2 choices. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
