The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Revolution on July 08, 2010, 04:55:33 PM
-
SUPERIOR - Signed by Governor Jim Doyle last year, Wisconsin's statewide smoking ban in bars, hotels, and restaurants law took effect Monday.
Wisconsin lawmakers say they wrote the new law to include indoor workplaces and enclosed public areas.
http://www.fox21online.com/news/smoking-ban-hits-wisconsin-bars-restaurants
It went into effect 3 days ago. There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. This owner of a bar says it better than I could.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUDd8ZQpYvU&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]
She's right about wintertime. Watch things begin to heat up around Oct/Nov. Though, I'm already seeing people outside bitching legitimately while they smoke. I'm actually also seeing cops roll by the bars 4-5 times every few nights. They just glare at those standing outside exercising their rights. I know what's coming too. They can't control outside on the sidewalk, so they'll start citing people for littering just to fill their stinkin' kauffers.
This is a clear breach of freedom. Went into effect THE DAY AFTER INDEPENDENCE DAY!! How's that for cruel irony? I actually went to my local watering hole yesterday. Talked to some of the bar backs. One was telling me that he's going to lose 1/3 of his business/tips most likely. I was talking about making bars "Private clubs" Charge 8-12 bucks for a little plastic card membership, and make it a free establishment. Emphatic no. That guy seems scared to death, actually. I don't blame him. Fighting against stuff like this is tough. I understand him being worried about his livelihood. However, sometimes it is necessary.
Truckstops are the same way now. Can't smoke in any of those. I know because my father works at one. Employees who even walk on any ground not deemed "acceptable" to smoke outside on the premises are subject to punishment. It used to be that you could smoke in the restaurant, the convenience area, and truckers could smoke basically everywhere but the bathrooms. Including the theatre, and entertainment room.
Things are not the same anymore, and it's all because of prohibitionists. They are the ones who are behind this thing. The thing about these animals is that they don't stop. The fight to banish booze is not over with them. They're making strong headway on tobacco, (and it'll get worse) and the VERY NEXT thing these shits are going for is what they deem to be unhealthy food/drink. Look what has happened in San Francisco, California? Vending machines are no longer allowed to carry carbonated drinks, or even flavored water! Instead, it is being instructed that these machines carry crap like soy milk, and rice milk.
California's economy isn't bad enough already, right? Wisconsin's economy isn't bad enough already without Emperor Doyle gumming up the works even further, right?
I cannot tell any of you how infuriating this kind of stuff is to me. I can only keep typing...
-
That same rule killed Dallas's bar scene. They were doing good business, now the peeps go to the suburbs, two of which will more than likely never ever change to non-smoking.
-
What makes it exponentially worse for us personally is we're a small, small town of about 9-12 thousand people.
-
I lived on the Cape and worked in a bar when Mass. passed their smoking control laws. Everybody said the bars were all going to shut down because of it - none did. It was great not smelling like smoke every night and even better bouncing out the drunks that thought it was funny to light up (with a strongly enforced $10,000 fine for every infraction the owner made it clear people would get fired if he was fined). Same thing now that I'm in CT. Why should I have to smell your smoke? Health issue or not, I don't want to be in the same building with smokers.
City bans are a lot different because they truly do effect the businesses in city limits - so let's just make it a nation-wide ban and be done with it.
-
The Wisconsin Restaurant Association and the American Lung Association support the new law and state Senator Bob Jauch says 80 percent of Wisconsin residents back it.
Seems like it is largely supported legislation.
-
As a non smoker, I think it's great that it's been outlawed out of restaurants. I hate the smell of smoke and smokers.... :bolt:
-
^
Same thing now that I'm in CT. Why should I have to smell your smoke? Health issue or not, I don't want to be in the same building with smokers.
That might be, guys, but it really shouldn't be an "I don't like" type of thing. It should be a "Constitutionality" thing. Just like I wouldn't agree with carving hunks of fat off of obese people. Of course, I'm going to an extreme here, but it's only to drive the point home. It may be that some obese people are unpleasant to look at/smell. Doesn't make it right to seclude them from society or make them out to be less of a person than the average non smoker. I have heard, and witnessed both.
Seems like it is largely supported legislation.
The election of a certain community organizer to the Presidency was also largely supported...
-
^
That might be, guys, but it really shouldn't be an "I don't like" type of thing. It should be a "Constitutionality" thing. Just like I wouldn't agree with carving hunks of fat off of obese people. Of course, I'm going to an extreme here, but it's only to drive the point home. It may be that some obese people are unpleasant to look at/smell. Doesn't make it right to seclude them from society or make them out to be less of a person than the average non smoker. I have heard, and witnessed both.
The election of a certain community organizer to the Presidency was also largely supported...
You equate imposing second hand smoke on someone to looking at an obese person? why?
-
That's not a fair comparison. A person being obese doesn't affect me, really. A person smoking near me does, in that I would be ingesting the smoke.
-
There isn't really anything that compares except possibly walking through a public area with a boom-box (yes I said it) on full blast - Oh. wait...that is already restricted, precedent perhaps?
-
Happened here 2 years ago.
What some bars did, was not allow anyone under 21 in at anytime, and kept the smoking. They do incredible business.
While comparing a smoker and an obese person may not seem logical .... it actually is.
Just as smoking is being banned....so are things that contribute to obesity....like no carbonated drinks, or sugar-added drinks, etc, in vending machines in SanFrancisco. Or salt in NYC.
It's a slow erosion of our rights. Where does it stop?
I'm not an advocate of smoking....though I live with 2 smokers and bitch at them all the time about it.....and while I think it's nasty and don't want it blowing in my face....I do wonder if it's all that harmful to a non-smoker. I've known people who have gotten lung cancer and never smoked, as I'm sure others have known people who have, too.
And while I might have given up "real" pop and switched to Diet years ago.....it was MY choice. And that's the way it should be.
Not the government telling us we are not going to have it.
-
My opinion nobody has the right to walk into a room that I'm in and start smoking. Just like the other night when I was at the Sting concert and the bitch next to me wouldn't stop talking, I told her - nicely - to STFU.
Now if they try to say people can't smoke in their own house or in the car then I'll be right next to you defending that.
-
My opinion nobody has the right to walk into a room that I'm in and start smoking. Just like the other night when I was at the Sting concert and the bitch next to me wouldn't stop talking, I told her - nicely - to STFU.
Now if they try to say people can't smoke in their own house or in the car then I'll be right next to you defending that.
It isn't that I disagree with your point about smoking.....I don't.
My only point is....the government started with smoking because it was "nasty" to all of us who don't smoke....so it was an easy move to make....compared to restricting foods to people.
Now that the smoking ban is well on it's successful way....now they are going after specific foods.
How are you going to feel when you pull into MickeyD's, order a Big Mac and a large fries and be told...
"So sorry, Mr Randy....you had a Big Mac and fries a month ago, you don't qualify to have them for another 5 months!" ?
It isn't a question of whether or not the government will start to control our dietary intake...they are already starting to in places. Just read the whole thread on the vending machines in SanFrancisco.
-
My aunt, who was a non smoker, but married to a smoker, died two years ago of lung cancer. Smoking does effect non smokers. Second hand smoke also causes lung cancer. Deb, if I were you, I'd insist they stopped...Good luck doing that!
-
My aunt, who was a non smoker, but married to a smoker, died two years ago of lung cancer. Smoking does effect non smokers. Second hand smoke also causes lung cancer. Deb, if I were you, I'd insist they stopped...Good luck doing that!
I have...and I get nowhere. :bawl:
-
My aunt, who was a non smoker, but married to a smoker, died two years ago of lung cancer. Smoking does effect non smokers. Second hand smoke also causes lung cancer. Deb, if I were you, I'd insist they stopped...Good luck doing that!
to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, But the simple fact is that despite the Environmental Protection Agency's infamous and fraudulent "thumb-on-the-scale" ruling in 1993 which held the second-hand tobacco smoke was a Class A Carcinogen, the very worst kind, actual scientific evidence for harm to non-smokers is scant, at best.
What evidence there is comes from epidemiological surveys which are notorious for their fallibility when they rely on individuals to self-report what they do and how they do it. Then there is the issue of correcting the surveys for non-smoke related biases such as diet, exercise, and family history when trying to pin down the health effects of one component, like tobacco smoke, that a person might be exposed to in some unknown quantity. And this assumes the sample size of the survey is large enough and diverse enough to have any significance to begin with.
More importantly, what little correlation with adverse health effects these studies may indicate flow from this simplistic assumption: If non-smokers living with smokers die sooner - or more get cancer or heart disease - when compared to similar non-smokers not exposed to smokers, then second-hand smoke is the cause. You might as well roll with the Monty Python test for a witch – does she float? – with that kind of scientific rigor.
In 2003, author Michael Crichton called out the tobacco smoke scare mongering in a widely noted address at Cal-Tech on the topic of scientific fallacies of the day. Crichton observed that pressure-group tactics and an appeal to consensus, the notion that "everybody" believes something, has replaced actual scientific evidence in far too many public policy disputes. He explained:
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
…
As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions.
Not surprisingly, Crichton developed this theme into his current novel, State of Fear, which explores the explosive notion that scare-mongers exploit the "consensus" view of environmental dangers to their own personal benefit.
The second-hand smoke kills crowd seems to sense that they need a fallback argument as holes are punched in their "consensus" view and now turn to the notion that it is simply good economics to ban smoking. Ban smoking and smoke-hating people will flock to restaurants, setting off a boomlet in nightlife. Or something. But this supposes that restaurant operators across the county now willfully resist adopting a no smoking policy despite the money that will make r this.
Blowing Second Hand Smoke (http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=2127)
-
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).
Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).
Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.
-
Thanks you, Zeus. I actually have a few different links I was ready with in the (inevitable) event the discussion went to ETS. Like this one:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm
Many, many good debunking, and pointing out of the fraudulent "sciences" scaremongers use. However...
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html
I think I like this one from an M.D. better. I always refer to this when in debates about this topic. I may have to start referring to the one Zeus posted though.
-
The second hand smoke research is skewed. Just like the Glow-Bull warming. However, citizens have bought into that, hook line and sinker.
My problem with it is property rights. If a place wants to allow smoking, then, by all means allow it. Let the clientele decide. On the converse side, people that don't smoke don't have to go to places that allow smoking. Pretty simple, huh?? Minnesota did the same thing back in 2006 or 2007, I forget. Since I rarely go to bars or taverns, it doesn't bother me. Even though I DO smoke, I don't typically enjoy the smoke smell at restaurants while I'm trying to eat. However, if the wait for food gets to be too long, then sometimes it is nice to be able to go grab a smoke. When the service at restaurants is good, the food (salads, whatever) comes fairly quickly, I don't miss it. My ex mother in law used to light up in the middle of a dinner at her house. I had to insure that I sat far away from her. Her house, her rules.
-
As a non smoker, I think it's great that it's been outlawed out of restaurants. I hate the smell of smoke and smokers.... :bolt:
I agree.
I used to smoke but got a 'brain fart' in 1992 and quit because...well...I am quite confident that smoking is detrimental to a person's health. Chewing Copenhagen on the other hand was fracking wonderful. Nothing like a Cope 1st thing in the morning, after a meal, during ALL day, with a home crafted beer, etc. Quit that ten years ago too but could start again tomorrow!
A smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool...
-
And yet every public pool one goes to, there has undoubtedly been some kid who pissed in there. You may have even swam through "warm spot" at some point. The whole point here is that you don't beat the kid's ass and ban him/her from the pool. It's one of life's many little things one has to deal with. It may be unpleasant, and distasteful, but all you really have to do is go home, and take a shower.
See what I mean?
My problem with it is property rights. If a place wants to allow smoking, then, by all means allow it. Let the clientele decide. On the converse side, people that don't smoke don't have to go to places that allow smoking.
That's fairly simple to me, and I agree 100%
Chewing Copenhagen on the other hand was fracking wonderful. Nothing like a Cope 1st thing in the morning, after a meal, during ALL day, with a home crafted beer, etc. Quit that ten years ago too but could start again tomorrow!
I find it quite odd that I can smoke like a chimney, but dislike the taste of chew. I've tried dippin' a couple of times, but it just isn't for me. Something about the way it burns my gums, tastes, or something. I don't know. Maybe I just don't like the feel of it in there.
-
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).
Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).
Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.
Since this was ignored, I will bump it up again.
-
Since this was ignored, I will bump it up again.
and I stated that the data is flawed. I liken it to the data we got from the Glow-Bull warming crowd. The bigger fact is that second hand smoke cannot be directly attributed to cancer, IMO. There are MANY environmental factors that are left out. Radon exposure ( a MAJOR contributor), exhaust fumes, chemical exposures, etc. I recall a Doctor in Houston that was intentionally skewing the data because if he decided that a person smoked or was exposed to cigarette smoke, he would mark that on the death certificate, regardless of the REAL cause.
I will admit that smoking is NOT good for anybody. I question whether or not second hand smoke actually causes the damage people claim it does. I've been on BOTH sides of the fence as far as being a smoker or non-smoker. Does second hand smoke stink?? HELL YES!! Does it do damage?? Possibly. There is data out there to debate what the Control Freaks are publishing. I WILL say this: since the Government has mandated that a certain chemical be added to cigarettes in order to make them extinguish themselves, I have noticed that I have had more lung problems and difficulty breathing. Before that chemical was added, it seemed as if smoking bothered me some, physically, but not to the extent it does a year or so later.
-
I WILL say this: since the Government has mandated that a certain chemical be added to cigarettes in order to make them extinguish themselves, I have noticed that I have had more lung problems and difficulty breathing. Before that chemical was added, it seemed as if smoking bothered me some, physically, but not to the extent it does a year or so later.
I wonder if those American Spirits have the same thing????
-
I wonder if those American Spirits have the same thing????
Apparently they all do....
M and T have both been coughing more lately....and neither one of them used to very much.
I just told M what you said Thor....and he agreed he'd been coughing more but he thought it was the air quality we've been having here. I was really good, and didn't tell him that yes, MY air quality was being affected. :innocent:
I say frequent prayers hoping they will quit. So far it isn't working...but I keep prayin'....
-
I WILL say this: since the Government has mandated that a certain chemical be added to cigarettes in order to make them extinguish themselves, I have noticed that I have had more lung problems and difficulty breathing. Before that chemical was added, it seemed as if smoking bothered me some, physically, but not to the extent it does a year or so later
Actually, I have been thinking along the same lines. I too have been coughing a bit more since it was added now that I think about it. Not sure I can prove it's the chemical, but new things crop up daily, so we may soon find out.
-
I WILL say this: since the Government has mandated that a certain chemical be added to cigarettes in order to make them extinguish themselves, I have noticed that I have had more lung problems and difficulty breathing. Before that chemical was added, it seemed as if smoking bothered me some, physically, but not to the extent it does a year or so later
That's like asking Mrs. Lincoln "Did you enjoy the play?" It's not like smoking is actually a health benefit.
-
And yet every public pool one goes to, there has undoubtedly been some kid who pissed in there. You may have even swam through "warm spot" at some point. The whole point here is that you don't beat the kid's ass and ban him/her from the pool. It's one of life's many little things one has to deal with. It may be unpleasant, and distasteful, but all you really have to do is go home, and take a shower.
See what I mean?
That's fairly simple to me, and I agree 100%
I find it quite odd that I can smoke like a chimney, but dislike the taste of chew. I've tried dippin' a couple of times, but it just isn't for me. Something about the way it burns my gums, tastes, or something. I don't know. Maybe I just don't like the feel of it in there.
Peeing in the pool is the wrong analogy. If you went to a public pool and someone stood next to you and started peeing and some of that pee splashed onto your shirt and the side of your face and all you could smell for the next few hours was pee - that would be the right analogy. So after you get pee'd on just go take a shower...
-
Right Coast, let me guess. You used to smoke, didn't you??
-
If you went to a public pool and someone stood next to you and started peeing and some of that pee splashed onto your shirt and the side of your face and all you could smell for the next few hours was pee - that would be the right analogy.
No it wouldn't. Simply for the fact that that never happens. At least that I've seen. And how would it splash onto your face, anyway? Either someone can projective piss into the water, or they'd have to be peeing straight up into the air.
That's pretty farfetched.
-
and I stated that the data is flawed. I liken it to the data we got from the Glow-Bull warming crowd. The bigger fact is that second hand smoke cannot be directly attributed to cancer, IMO. There are MANY environmental factors that are left out. Radon exposure ( a MAJOR contributor), exhaust fumes, chemical exposures, etc. I recall a Doctor in Houston that was intentionally skewing the data because if he decided that a person smoked or was exposed to cigarette smoke, he would mark that on the death certificate, regardless of the REAL cause.
I will admit that smoking is NOT good for anybody. I question whether or not second hand smoke actually causes the damage people claim it does. I've been on BOTH sides of the fence as far as being a smoker or non-smoker. Does second hand smoke stink?? HELL YES!! Does it do damage?? Possibly. There is data out there to debate what the Control Freaks are publishing. I WILL say this: since the Government has mandated that a certain chemical be added to cigarettes in order to make them extinguish themselves, I have noticed that I have had more lung problems and difficulty breathing. Before that chemical was added, it seemed as if smoking bothered me some, physically, but not to the extent it does a year or so later.
The data in that fact sheet is a listing of the chemicals found in second hand smoke. I can't see how that is flawed.
How is secondhand smoke exposure measured?
Secondhand smoke is measured by testing indoor air for nicotine or other smoke constituents. Exposure to secondhand smoke can be tested by measuring the levels of cotinine (a nicotine by-product in the body) in the nonsmoker’s blood, saliva, or urine (1). Nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide, and other evidence of secondhand smoke exposure have been found in the body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.
That is pretty specific evidence.
This fact sheet also links numerous studies/research on this topic. Rather difficult to discount all as flawed.
-
No it wouldn't. Simply for the fact that that never happens. At least that I've seen. And how would it splash onto your face, anyway? Either someone can projective piss into the water, or they'd have to be peeing straight up into the air.
That's pretty farfetched.
Just because it doesn't happen, doesn't make it a far fetched analogy. Inhaling the smoke that you exhale into my lungs (permeating my hair, clothes, pocketbook) is not the same as being in a public chlorinated pool with a child who peed. That is what is far fetched.
-
Millions of smokers have never had cancer. Anecdotal stories of people living well past their 90's who smoked their whole life and never got cancer. I sometimes wonder if there isn't some other factors being overlooked in those that do get cancer.
-
Just because it doesn't happen, doesn't make it a far fetched analogy. Inhaling the smoke that you exhale into my lungs (permeating my hair, clothes, pocketbook) is not the same as being in a public chlorinated pool with a child who peed. That is what is far fetched.
Actually, it's quite the same. You mentioned the chlorine: You body is like the chlorine that dilutes the smoke/piss, actually. You think a smoker's body takes wear and tear, right? A non smoker's system who isn't around it very much can deal with it a whole heck of a lot more efficently/speedily. Heck, even a non smoker who's around it a lot takes in less than a pack a year. (refer to my link.) 0.03 cigarettes a day. Should be safe to assume that the body, being the remarkable machine that it is, could process that much of a cigarette, and clean out your system in no time.
-
Actually, it's quite the same. You mentioned the chlorine: You body is like the chlorine that dilutes the smoke/piss, actually. You think a smoker's body takes wear and tear, right? A non smoker's system who isn't around it very much can deal with it a whole heck of a lot more efficently/speedily. Heck, even a non smoker who's around it a lot takes in less than a pack a year. (refer to my link.) 0.03 cigarettes a day. Should be safe to assume that the body, being the remarkable machine that it is, could process that much of a cigarette, and clean out your system in no time.
Refer to link to numerous studies in Hawkgirl's post, and the excerpt I pulled from that link.
-
I saw it. Believe me when I tell you...I read it. Here's one of the first things I noticed...
Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes.
Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.
No offense here, Hawk, but I then proceeded to laugh my balls off. See the "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentallity here?
It would be like me saying having a wood burning stove in your home will give you cancer without providing any concrete, hard data to back it up. Which...there isn't for this topic. It's all subjective/suspect. A heck of a lot of people use wood burning stoves for heat/cooking. I have never..ever heard of anyone getting any type of cancer from it. My grandmother used to have one before she moved out of her house. She has no ill effects.
-
As a non smoker, I think it's great that it's been outlawed out of restaurants. I hate the smell of smoke and smokers.... :bolt:
Agree.
I can't stand being in my parent's house or cars whenever we go back to visit. It's stale smoke.
A ban isn't necessary though. There are non-smoking sections. Some of the non-smoking sections suck and you can still smell a lot of smoke, so it defeats the purpose, but still....
It should be up to the businesses whether or not they want customers smoking in their establishments.
I haven't read this whole thread yet. I just wanted to quote you! :)
-
I agree with not allowing smoking in restaurants, I don't like the smell either when I'm eating, but bars are a whole different thing. Many restaurants in Illinois were non-smoking even before Illinois passed their ban. Illinois went too far with their ban. All public buildings are non-smoking. One bar we used to go to built a little shed with heat outside their back door. They were told that they would have to remove the door and the windows or else it would be covered by the ban.
Also, if you run a business out of your home, and customers come into your house, then your own home is considered a public building and no smoking is allowed.
-
And yet every public pool one goes to, there has undoubtedly been some kid who pissed in there. You may have even swam through "warm spot" at some point. The whole point here is that you don't beat the kid's ass and ban him/her from the pool. It's one of life's many little things one has to deal with. It may be unpleasant, and distasteful, but all you really have to do is go home, and take a shower.
See what I mean?
Erm no because there is chlorine in the pool to kill the piss.
There is NO chlorine in the air to kill your smoke....
-
Erm no because there is chlorine in the pool to kill the piss.
There is NO chlorine in the air to kill your smoke....
Outside, there is just wide open space that disperses the smoke to almost nill. All you really get is the smell. (which changes nothing, by the way, cause that's all SHS really is...an acrid smell) Inside? Well, I personally know business owners who have spent oodles on vents, and such to get partially rid of the smoke. After all, it was made a rule here in WI that you were required to have something like that in your business for smokers. Now what are they going to do? They're out that money they spent. Seem FAIR to you guys?
THANKS DOYLE!!!
-
I saw it. Believe me when I tell you...I read it. Here's one of the first things I noticed...
No offense here, Hawk, but I then proceeded to laugh my balls off. See the "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentallity here?
It would be like me saying having a wood burning stove in your home will give you cancer without providing any concrete, hard data to back it up. Which...there isn't for this topic. It's all subjective/suspect. A heck of a lot of people use wood burning stoves for heat/cooking. I have never..ever heard of anyone getting any type of cancer from it. My grandmother used to have one before she moved out of her house. She has no ill effects.
Wow -- take text out of context much? The entire quote:
Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).
Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).
Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.
-
Millions of smokers have never had cancer. Anecdotal stories of people living well past their 90's who smoked their whole life and never got cancer. I sometimes wonder if there isn't some other factors being overlooked in those that do get cancer.
And millions more have. My father was one. My grandmother another.
-
And millions more have. My father was one. My grandmother another.
My MIL died from lung cancer from smoking also.
-
Outside, there is just wide open space that disperses the smoke to almost nill. All you really get is the smell. (which changes nothing, by the way, cause that's all SHS really is...an acrid smell) Inside? Well, I personally know business owners who have spent oodles on vents, and such to get partially rid of the smoke. After all, it was made a rule here in WI that you were required to have something like that in your business for smokers. Now what are they going to do? They're out that money they spent. Seem FAIR to you guys?
THANKS DOYLE!!!
Fair...Funny word, I don't think it's fair that I can be sitting in a restaurant with my family, enjoying our meal and then you can come sit down next to me and ruin the evening by lighting up a smoke. Seem FAIR to you???
You want to smoke outside go ahead, just don't think you're going to stand next to me and my kids while you do it.
Again I'm staying away from the SHS health argument because we simply don't know 100% - although really what are the odds that all those chemicals don't cause lung damage? I SIMPLY DON'T WANT TO SMELL THAT SHIT. That is why the pee on the face is the better pool analogy.
As far as the smoke eaters that businesses bought, oh well, they don't really work all that good on heavy smoke, but work great as ventilation to dissipate body heat without turning on the AC. I've gone through the smoking bans in 2 states now - no bars have closed that weren't going to close anyway, and new bars open everyday. I worked at a hugely popular restaurant/bar during the transition in Mass. - the difference in how I felt and how I smelled at the end of the night after the ban was amazing. And that place had some of the best smoke eaters available, and is still in business today after 12 years of not being able to smoke.
Smokers bitch and whine, then go outside like sheep and smoke in the cold...oh ******* well.
-
Right Coast, let me guess. You used to smoke, didn't you??
When my uncle had me stationed on Oki I smoked for six months. Every morning after a night out I gave away or threw away whatever was left in the pack from the night before. Wouldn't lite up again until the first round the next night.
-
I saw the carcinogens. I don't doubt there are TRACES of many different carcinogens. Whether they are class A cancer causing when EXHALED...is disputeable. Think about it. The smoker's lungs absorb the majority of it.
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen
But where pre tell, is the hard data? There's 1, 2, 3 numbers to refer you to places, but they're not links. They're not clickable. If they're going to tout this unadulterated shit, they should at least be able to link you to a credible study with hard data proving their point. (Which I feel I should bring up that I haven't seen one that isn't either funded to come out to a specific conclusion, or supported by prohibitionists, or propped in some other non scientific way)
The other thing they do in this link:http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html
is play to your sympathies as a tactic. Smoking during pregnancy, and around people with respiratory problems specifically. Everyone knows that smoking while pregnant, or around asthmatics/others with respiratory problems is detrimental to their health. It isn't because of the smoke solely either. It's a combination of the acrid smoke, and the fact that the person has a problem breathing normally. We going to ban campfires too so that these two categories of people are fully content? Hell, we should ban fire totally so that pregnant women, and people with breathing problems don't have to deal with any kind of smoke. Perfect world, right?
Even smokers usually move away if someone asks. Common decency dictates that. Only a complete dick would stick around. That's not the issue. The issue is this site playing to sympathies, and building strawmen where they shouldn't be any. Because that's exactly what these little linkies are without hard data.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way: Not one of the studies provided anywhere on this issue meets the scientific standard to be credible. CI Rating, I believe it's called. It must be 3.0 minimum to prove anything, and must have an RR of 200% All other studies on any subject are subject to this standard. For example, the '92-'93 EPA study which much of the "proof" is based on had a CI rating less than 2.0, and an RR of 95% which means it proved nothing.
I actually believe some of what I said above was in the 2nd link I provided, lurker, but you kept assuming that I didn't read the quote/link provided me, so you kept shoving it in my face. I can only restrain myself for so long... Read MY link now that I have addressed Hawk's, kay?
I hate to say it, but I have had this conversation time, and time again with liberals, and a lot of left wing loons. It's disappointing to say the least that I am running into some of the same comments that I did at other discussion boards. I honestly thought it would be different here as pertains to this topic. I've seen variations of the phrase "A lie is still a lie even if mentioned 1000 times" posted here a few times, but it seems to me that only a few in this thread take it to heart. Would many of you be saying the same things if the DUmmies were looking for bans on tobacco products across the United States? I'd still be sticking to my guns. Admittedly, tobacco products are worse (for THE SMOKER) than the soft drink bans in San Fran, but did any of you support those??
Fair...Funny word, I don't think it's fair that I can be sitting in a restaurant with my family, enjoying our meal and then you can come sit down next to me and ruin the evening by lighting up a smoke. Seem FAIR to you???
Firstly, if that's the way it panned out, no. But that isn't usually the case, now is it? Secondly, restaurants USED to have two sections. You could go to yours without fear of a smoker coming in and lighting up next to your kid. Third, even if a smoker did light up on the bench next to you in your non smoking section, you could do one of two things. 1. Ask him to leave/go back to his section. 2. Talk to the manager or whoever is in charge. Simple really.
You want to smoke outside go ahead, just don't think you're going to stand next to me and my kids while you do it.
I'm just curious, but do you happen to give smokers shit as you walk by them standing outside having one? It just seems that your attitude is quite hostile. Don't worry though. Unless you/your kids have respiratory problems, or are pregnant...you're gonna be fine. (If by chance someone in your family does have respiratory problems, I would NEVER smoke around them, and would hope nobody else would either.)
As far as the smoke eaters that businesses bought, oh well
That's both outrageous, and comical One, it's entirely crass to say "Oh well" to owners that were FORCED to get these gigantic, money eating things that are now worthless. Two, because you seem like the kind of person that the prohibitionists bought. Two sided coin, I guess.
However, the prohibitionists, and the media bought the majority of people based on a lie. So did Obama. Why is it that we can criticize Obama based on his lies, but because we don't like the SMELL of something, for God's sake, it A-OK to buy right into the rhetoric??
-
NYS has had the ban for at least three-four years (don't remember the exact number). Patrons smoke outside. Ya know what some of the bars in Albany, along Pearl Street, did? They got some of those propane-powered heaters that stand about seven feet tall, put them outside their front doors, and put their butt receptacles next to them. The bars are still packed on the weekends.
It's "adapt and overcome," people. Isn't that what us conservatives do?
-
Yes, we do. However, there's so much we have to overcome these days, I don't think another BS item should be in the cards. This is directly a nurtured plant of liberalism, and it grows bigger, and bigger by the day. It shouldn't have to be something we need to overcome simply because an unfair target was placed on our backs.
-
NYS has had the ban for at least three-four years (don't remember the exact number). Patrons smoke outside. Ya know what some of the bars in Albany, along Pearl Street, did? They got some of those propane-powered heaters that stand about seven feet tall, put them outside their front doors, and put their butt receptacles next to them. The bars are still packed on the weekends.
It's "adapt and overcome," people. Isn't that what us conservatives do?
Minnesota did the same thing when they passed their smoking ban. It appears to work. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind it if a place CHOSE to be non-smoking. There are a few around here where I live in Texas. That's fine by me. I can choose to be a patron or not and sometimes I do patronize these places. Same with the non-smokers. They are free to choose whether or not to go to a place that allows smoking. Nobody is forcing people to do anything they don't want to do. So, non-smokers, your arguments don't wash. Folks, this isn't really about smoking, it's about FREEDOM (the removal of), property rights, and CONTROL. Already a few places in this county have started an initiative controlling what we eat or consume. It's creeping incrementalism at its finest.
-
Yes, we do. However, there's so much we have to overcome these days, I don't think another BS item should be in the cards. This is directly a nurtured plant of liberalism, and it grows bigger, and bigger by the day. It shouldn't have to be something we need to overcome simply because an unfair target was placed on our backs.
The Smoking Haters are so emotionally invested in the issue no one will ever change their minds. I thinks it's utterly astounding that the "haters" have so totally bought into their positions with classic Liberals Ideals. They are so extremely emotionally invested that no amt of evidence to the contrary will move them from their position.theyalso fail to realize that by ceding more control to govt it paves the road for yet more & more govt control over everyones lifes. So typically liberal, govt control over others not them & emotion rather than logic & factual driven
-
The Smoking Haters are so emotionally invested in the issue no one will ever change their minds. I thinks it's utterly astounding that the "haters" have so totally bought into their positions with classic Liberals Ideals. They are so extremely emotionally invested that no amt of evidence to the contrary will move them from their position.theyalso fail to realize that by ceding more control to govt it paves the road for yet more & more govt control over everyones lifes. So typically liberal, govt control over others not them & emotion rather than logic & factual driven
WTF? Smoking haters? :rotf:
:whatever:
-
The Smoking Haters are so emotionally invested in the issue no one will ever change their minds. I thinks it's utterly astounding that the "haters" have so totally bought into their positions with classic Liberals Ideals. They are so extremely emotionally invested that no amt of evidence to the contrary will move them from their position.theyalso fail to realize that by ceding more control to govt it paves the road for yet more & more govt control over everyones lifes. So typically liberal, govt control over others not them & emotion rather than logic & factual driven
Lighten up, Francis.
I'm an ex-smoker, but I really couldn't give two shits whether or not a place is smoking or not. If I want to patronize a place that allows smoking (for example, our local American Legion hall does), and I want to deal with the clothes smell afterwards, it's all good. If not, I don't.
Choice means YOU can change the channel too.
-
The Smoking Haters are so emotionally invested in the issue no one will ever change their minds. I thinks it's utterly astounding that the "haters" have so totally bought into their positions with classic Liberals Ideals. They are so extremely emotionally invested that no amt of evidence to the contrary will move them from their position.theyalso fail to realize that by ceding more control to govt it paves the road for yet more & more govt control over everyones lifes. So typically liberal, govt control over others not them & emotion rather than logic & factual driven
Zeus has a point. There are many people that are so rabidly anti-smoking that they could care less on what freedoms they usurp or cede. (This applies to all political affiliations)
-
The Smoking Haters are so emotionally invested in the issue no one will ever change their minds. I thinks it's utterly astounding that the "haters" have so totally bought into their positions with classic Liberals Ideals. They are so extremely emotionally invested that no amt of evidence to the contrary will move them from their position.theyalso fail to realize that by ceding more control to govt it paves the road for yet more & more govt control over everyones lifes. So typically liberal, govt control over others not them & emotion rather than logic & factual driven
Zeus has a point. There are many people that are so rabidly anti-smoking that they could care less on what freedoms they usurp or cede. (This applies to all political affiliations)
+1 for both of you. Agreed.
WTF? Smoking haters? :rotf:
:whatever:
Would "freedom killers", "prohibitionists," or just plain "assholes" be more accurate?
-
Would many of you be saying the same things if the DUmmies were looking for bans on tobacco products across the United States? I'd still be sticking to my guns. Admittedly, tobacco products are worse (for THE SMOKER) than the soft drink bans in San Fran, but did any of you support those??
San Fran is full of loons no stopping them. And this issue is the core of the conservative movement; ever heard of STATE’S RIGHTS? The states are saying “you can’t smoke here.†I would be dead set against a federal law of the same caliber.
Firstly, if that's the way it panned out, no. But that isn't usually the case, now is it? Secondly, restaurants USED to have two sections. You could go to yours without fear of a smoker coming in and lighting up next to your kid. Third, even if a smoker did light up on the bench next to you in your non smoking section, you could do one of two things. 1. Ask him to leave/go back to his section. 2. Talk to the manager or whoever is in charge. Simple really.
Growing up both my parents were former smokers, we always sat in non-smoking sections, and they were always separated from the smoking section by a fern or an aquarium, not the type of thing that is going to stop smoke.
I'm just curious, but do you happen to give smokers shit as you walk by them standing outside having one? It just seems that your attitude is quite hostile. Don't worry though. Unless you/your kids have respiratory problems, or are pregnant...you're gonna be fine. (If by chance someone in your family does have respiratory problems, I would NEVER smoke around them, and would hope nobody else would either.)
I don’t give a rat’s ass if you smoke outside – the whole point is I don’t want you to smoke inside where I am. And hostile has nothing to do with it, as long as I don’t have to sit in a cloud of your smoke.
So I agree that the science isn’t truly settled you go right back to “suck up all the SHS you want, you’re gonna be fine.†No thanks. Next you’ll say pot is harmless too, right. And the signs that we wear around our necks that say “please don’t smoke near us we have respiratory problems†always chaff the back of my neck.
That's both outrageous, and comical One, it's entirely crass to say "Oh well" to owners that were FORCED to get these gigantic, money eating things that are now worthless. Two, because you seem like the kind of person that the prohibitionists bought. Two sided coin, I guess.
It is neither outrageous, nor comical to say oh well. What else should I say – “darn, that’s a waste†– or “here’s ten bucks, does that make it better?†– Maybe: “vote for a different governor and get this overturned, then your smoke eaters will be useful again.†Businesses face changing regulations all the time, they’re used to it and it is a risk of being an owner vs. being and employee. And then back to federal law vs. state’s rights.
However, the prohibitionists, and the media bought the majority of people based on a lie. So did Obama. Why is it that we can criticize Obama based on his lies, but because we don't like the SMELL of something, for God's sake, it A-OK to buy right into the rhetoric??
So I have changed my mind, smoking is dangerous – it harms the brain. Why bring the dickhead of the united states into this? I don’t like the smell of smoke, it is possibly harmful to me, and it makes food taste different and my cloths smell after I’m in a room full of it. All the reason I need to say get the hell outside and puff away.
-
San Fran is full of loons no stopping them. And this issue is the core of the conservative movement; ever heard of STATE’S RIGHTS? The states are saying “you can’t smoke here.†I would be dead set against a federal law of the same caliber.
Growing up both my parents were former smokers, we always sat in non-smoking sections, and they were always separated from the smoking section by a fern or an aquarium, not the type of thing that is going to stop smoke.
What's the difference between the federal government taking away the nation's freedom, and the state government taking away it's state's citizen's freedom? It's STILL a breech of freedom.
Really? A lot of seperated, segragated restaurants I've been to have benches, and those wood protrusions that block it. Many more have the smoking/non in seperate areas totally, so that smoke would be a non issue.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if you smoke outside – the whole point is I don’t want you to smoke inside where I am. And hostile has nothing to do with it, as long as I don’t have to sit in a cloud of your smoke.
So your desire outweights mine? Is that what I'm gathering?
So I agree that the science isn’t truly settled you go right back to “suck up all the SHS you want, you’re gonna be fine.†No thanks. Next you’ll say pot is harmless too, right.
Not in terms of "contact high" maybe. I don't know about the SHS stuff pertaining to pot, because there are totally different chemicals/ingredients in pot. However, I wouldn't put much into the argument with pot or hash either. The science isn't doing too well for cigarettes/cigars.
And the signs that we wear around our necks that say “please don’t smoke near us we have respiratory problems†always chaff the back of my neck.
And I'm sorry you have respiratory problems, but you need to communicate that so we know. Just like we need to show courtest towards you. It's a two way street.
It is neither outrageous, nor comical to say oh well. What else should I say – “darn, that’s a waste†– or “here’s ten bucks, does that make it better?†– Maybe: “vote for a different governor and get this overturned, then your smoke eaters will be useful again.†Businesses face changing regulations all the time, they’re used to it and it is a risk of being an owner vs. being and employee. And then back to federal law vs. state’s rights.
All right, let's refer back to what I said just a little bit ago...
So I have changed my mind, smoking is dangerous – it harms the brain. Why bring the dickhead of the united states into this? I don’t like the smell of smoke, it is possibly harmful to me, and it makes food taste different and my cloths smell after I’m in a room full of it. All the reason I need to say get the hell outside and puff away.
[/quote]
Nobody is arguing that smoking is dangerous....FOR THE SMOKER! And where are you getting that it harms the brain. It harms the lungs, sure, but I believe that it actually helps the brain in that there are nicotine receptors up there that make you feel good, and relaxed....more focused. Still, for the smoker, the good outweights the bad.
-
Well we can argue all you want to, but you still can't smoke in a restaurant/ business.
Yes, according to your state and mine, my desire outweighs yours, at least in this matter.
I don't have respiratory problems, my point is you wouldn't know if I did or not by looking at me.
So now your saying the GOOD effects outweigh any possible bad? Is that like saying you drive better after a six-pack of beer because you're concentrating more??
~out~
-
OK, I smoke. That said, when I go to the VFW during the bingo sessions, I can't stand it. We even have smoke eaters that are cleaned fairly often now. It still gets to a point where the smoke eaters don't work, as heavy as the smoke is. Hell, I even divided the bingo hall into a smoking and non-smoking section. Y'all should have HEARD the bitching by the smokers. (Keep in mind that our average bingo player is 65 or older, so they have been smoking for many years) The non-smokers appreciated the effort, even for how well it doesn't work. (The only "barrier" is a dance floor of some 30 ft wide) At least they don't have people sitting right next to them, chain smoking.
-
Would "freedom killers", "prohibitionists," or just plain "assholes" be more accurate?
Freedom killers? :whatever:
Lots of links to research, and statistics (which has links to even more stats and research), from Hawkgirl's original link. You aren't looking at them however cause you found a handful of links that claim it's all a conspiracy theory of big government. Whatever.
Wisconsin is denying your right to blow smoke in someone's face. So sue them.
-
The Smoking Haters are so emotionally invested in the issue no one will ever change their minds. I thinks it's utterly astounding that the "haters" have so totally bought into their positions with classic Liberals Ideals. They are so extremely emotionally invested that no amt of evidence to the contrary will move them from their position.theyalso fail to realize that by ceding more control to govt it paves the road for yet more & more govt control over everyones lifes. So typically liberal, govt control over others not them & emotion rather than logic & factual driven
I probably qualify as a smoking hater. I quit in 1979 after having smoked about 10 years. At the time I quit, I was up to about a pack a day -- not much by many smoking standards.
I can still remember the pleasure in smoking a cigarette after a meal and with a cup of coffee. At the same time, I knew it was killing me. When I damn near died (seemed like, anyway) after running a mile, I knew it was time to quit.
Anyway - I'm emotionally involved in this largely because my mother literally committed suicide by smoking. She'd had 7 bypasses done and had actually quit smoking for maybe 3 years, then decided she was ready to check out and picked it up again. I hated cigarettes and what she did with them. I hated the fact that she chose to end her life that way.
I hear the arguments about encroachment on liberty and property rights and SHS data being skewed or not. And as much as I loathe the size of the government and what it's become, I do believe government has a measure of responsibility in making sure that people are making informed decisions about what they're doing -- and as we have seen time and time again, people are misinformed or completely ignorant. Where we have situations where people like children or minors are in public places and they're exposed to tobacco, I think government has an obligation to restrict that activity, particularly when there is a public health issue as a result. Does that mean government goes after fatbodies? Not really. As far as I can tell, obesity impacts the immediate family, though there is a disturbing trend in our society.
It's easy to regulate smoking. It's a whole different matter to regulate Twinkie-stuffing.
If you're running a bar or restaurant and you choose to allow smoking in your facility, you won't see me frequenting your establishment. I vote with my feet. I quit bowling for that reason -- God, the smoke was so thick you could cut it with a knife.
As far as I'm concerned, the data are completely overwhelming -- the act of routinely using a tobacco product, usually by smoking it, has a deleterious effect on the human body. The fact that some people can smoke like chimneys their entire lives and not (supposedly) be impacted by the habit does not indicate anything about the statistical norm -- those folks are simply outliers. Most people have trouble as a result of smoking.
It's a tough issue. But I can tell you that Mrs E and I will turn around and walk out of a facility that smells like a chimney. For a business owner whose clientele consists of maybe 85% who smoke, he/she won't give a rip. That's fine. It's a win-win. I keep my lungs intact and he keeps his coughing and hacking customers.
And then there was the scene when I visited a family member in the hospital, in mid-January in Michigan with the temps in the single digits. Right there by the main entrance, off to the side a little bit, stood a man who had an IV stuck in his arm and the little wheeled stand with the IV bottle hanging from it, dressed in one of those backless hospital gowns, slippers on his feet and ice on the pavement -- smoking his cigarette.
I liken that to the hopeless drunk whose liver is gone, yellow as a daffodil from jaundice, as he lifts the water glass of rotgut gin up to his mouth with shaking hands....
Some people call that freedom. I call it enslavement.
YMMV.
-
I can see both sides of this problem.
In the State of Maine in the dead of winter say at 10 degrees below zero you are caught in a car with the windows rolled up and you have anyone in the car under 18, you can be arrested for child abuse if anyone is smoking.
My favorite restaurant and bar had a large nonsmoking area and big heavy glass french doors to the bar area where one could dine, drink and smoke.
This place had great food and those handi capped buses from the local nursing homes came rolling in when the special of the day was less then $5.00. The old timers loved the food and a chance to get the Hell out of the nursing home. There were some old timers, male and female that sneak into the bar area to eat and light up, play cards, read a book or just pass the time of day over a forbidden highball and a smoke.
Bless their hearts, after living and contributing to the USA for 80+ years, this was the last place they had any freedom twice a week. They drowned everything with salt, ate anything with fat, and for 90 minutes lived as they wanted to. In this place they were free to make their own decisions and free from anyone telling them what to do or not do.
I loved this place, the people who had worked, cried and suffered to build America were out of the prison where they had no choices on how they lived the last months of their lives.
When NH put in the non smoking bill, the restaurant began to slide, no more freedon for the old timers and they stopped coming. We had about 100 or so regulars that lived with in walking distance and stopped in for a cheap meal or a drink and a smoke 3-4 times a week. This also came to a stop.
Two days before Xmas the wait staff and kitchen workers --who knew the name of the regulars and the names of their kids, were told they would close the very next day. This was a disaster for us who had come to feel like this was a second home.
Since then a couple of others have tried to run the restaurant, the longest running place is a chicken and sandwitch place. The prices are cheap for lunch but to go in after work is now a once a month thing, after working overtime.
Now for 18 months I did not smoke but ate in the bar area to catch up on town news and gossip, much fun as the state of the art air scrubbers cleaned the air.
I refuse to go to the clubs or restaurants that have 30 some odd people smoking POT or cigs. outside the front doors. Last thing I need is a contact high from the Pot to make me order everything on the menu.
-
I probably qualify as a smoking hater. I quit in 1979 after having smoked about 10 years. At the time I quit, I was up to about a pack a day -- not much by many smoking standards.
I can still remember the pleasure in smoking a cigarette after a meal and with a cup of coffee. At the same time, I knew it was killing me. When I damn near died (seemed like, anyway) after running a mile, I knew it was time to quit.
Anyway - I'm emotionally involved in this largely because my mother literally committed suicide by smoking. She'd had 7 bypasses done and had actually quit smoking for maybe 3 years, then decided she was ready to check out and picked it up again. I hated cigarettes and what she did with them. I hated the fact that she chose to end her life that way.
I hear the arguments about encroachment on liberty and property rights and SHS data being skewed or not. And as much as I loathe the size of the government and what it's become, I do believe government has a measure of responsibility in making sure that people are making informed decisions about what they're doing -- and as we have seen time and time again, people are misinformed or completely ignorant. Where we have situations where people like children or minors are in public places and they're exposed to tobacco, I think government has an obligation to restrict that activity, particularly when there is a public health issue as a result. Does that mean government goes after fatbodies? Not really. As far as I can tell, obesity impacts the immediate family, though there is a disturbing trend in our society.
It's easy to regulate smoking. It's a whole different matter to regulate Twinkie-stuffing.
If you're running a bar or restaurant and you choose to allow smoking in your facility, you won't see me frequenting your establishment. I vote with my feet. I quit bowling for that reason -- God, the smoke was so thick you could cut it with a knife.
As far as I'm concerned, the data are completely overwhelming -- the act of routinely using a tobacco product, usually by smoking it, has a deleterious effect on the human body. The fact that some people can smoke like chimneys their entire lives and not (supposedly) be impacted by the habit does not indicate anything about the statistical norm -- those folks are simply outliers. Most people have trouble as a result of smoking.
It's a tough issue. But I can tell you that Mrs E and I will turn around and walk out of a facility that smells like a chimney. For a business owner whose clientele consists of maybe 85% who smoke, he/she won't give a rip. That's fine. It's a win-win. I keep my lungs intact and he keeps his coughing and hacking customers.
And then there was the scene when I visited a family member in the hospital, in mid-January in Michigan with the temps in the single digits. Right there by the main entrance, off to the side a little bit, stood a man who had an IV stuck in his arm and the little wheeled stand with the IV bottle hanging from it, dressed in one of those backless hospital gowns, slippers on his feet and ice on the pavement -- smoking his cigarette.
I liken that to the hopeless drunk whose liver is gone, yellow as a daffodil from jaundice, as he lifts the water glass of rotgut gin up to his mouth with shaking hands....
Some people call that freedom. I call it enslavement.
YMMV.
Eupher, I don't think many are arguing that the smoker is probably harming themselves. The argument lies in the second hand smoke issue. Most definitely is that data skewed on that issue. As I pointed out, a particular Dr in Houston was intentionally skewing the data. If a person was ever exposed to tobacco smoke, he automatically listed that a cause of death regardless of what the true cause was. I recall reading about that during the military.com debate days.
AS you stated, "I'm vote with my feet". That's cool by me. Does second hand smoke stink?? Most definitely. Is it truly harmful?? One could argue that. What about all of the other pollutants in the air we breathe?? They're probably MORE harmful and nobody is doing a thing about that. When I lived in Becker, lung problems were common. Why?? There was a coal burning power plant in the town. Even I noticed that on particular days, when the wind was from the right direction, I had breathing problems. Other days, such as when the wind was from the North, no problems. But, yet, they continue on, without much regard to the local citizens. The Government says that they are doing stuff about having clean air, but when one can see a yellow haze over the town on certain days, the matter becomes quite apparent. What about the city busses that emit TONS of diesel fumes?? Ohh, the government says that they're not harmful. If that's the case, why do I get ill when stuck behind one of them??
Then there's the whole radio frequency wave issue....... another debatable factor.
-
Eupher, I don't think many are arguing that the smoker is probably harming themselves. The argument lies in the second hand smoke issue. Most definitely is that data skewed on that issue. As I pointed out, a particular Dr in Houston was intentionally skewing the data. If a person was ever exposed to tobacco smoke, he automatically listed that a cause of death regardless of what the true cause was. I recall reading about that during the military.com debate days.
AS you stated, "I'm vote with my feet". That's cool by me. Does second hand smoke stink?? Most definitely. Is it truly harmful?? One could argue that. What about all of the other pollutants in the air we breathe?? They're probably MORE harmful and nobody is doing a thing about that. When I lived in Becker, lung problems were common. Why?? There was a coal burning power plant in the town. Even I noticed that on particular days, when the wind was from the right direction, I had breathing problems. Other days, such as when the wind was from the North, no problems. But, yet, they continue on, without much regard to the local citizens. The Government says that they are doing stuff about having clean air, but when one can see a yellow haze over the town on certain days, the matter becomes quite apparent. What about the city busses that emit TONS of diesel fumes?? Ohh, the government says that they're not harmful. If that's the case, why do I get ill when stuck behind one of them??
Then there's the whole radio frequency wave issue....... another debatable factor.
Okay, I think we can all agree that in any scientific point that is to be made, regardless of what it is, there is going to be misrepresentation and just plain fraud somewhere down the line. There's too much money at stake (the tobacco companies and insurance companies) and smokers are an easy target.
I haven't explored the SHS issue thoroughly, nor am I going to, but I think it's a matter of common sense that inhaling a regular amount of ANY substance that isn't normal air is going to be a problem somewhere down the road -- at least for me. You mention other pollutants -- as I said in my post, targeting smoking is an easy political move and compelling coal-fired power plants to install scrubbers is a lot more difficult. Remember the LA smog stuff and how much of a political hot button that was? There are many more miles being driven in the LA basin now than back in the Seventies and I have to think even with the extra California mandates on motor vehicles, LA still sees that yellow haze when temperature inversion occur.
Bottom line is, smokers are a dying breed (no pun intended). Fewer and fewer people are picking up the habit and more and more are quitting, despite the tobacco companies' best efforts -- and btw, their main efforts to induce people to pick up the habit (which is working fabulously) occurs in China. It's a battle they've lost here, so they look elsewhere to peddle their product.
That means less political clout here than in years past. It's really that simple.
-
In the State of Maine in the dead of winter say at 10 degrees below zero you are caught in a car with the windows rolled up and you have anyone in the car under 18, you can be arrested for child abuse if anyone is smoking.
PLEASE tell me this is false! I don't think it is, but I would like to hope people aren't this money stupid. That's one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.
Bottom line is, smokers are a dying breed (no pun intended).
I'll tell ya; it doesn't take long to see which side of the aisle you're on, dose it?
Fewer and fewer people are picking up the habit and more and more are quitting, despite the tobacco companies' best efforts
This makes your position even clearer. Good for people not picking up the habit. It's horrible for the 1st hand smoker. Good for people quitting. I'm struggling with that myself. The tobacco companies are just like any other company. They want business. If their bottom line is bountiful, they're happy. No need to get mad at the tobacco company because their customers choose to use their products. That's stupid
What's even dumber is to get mad at the company based on mistruths, and outright lies concerning a company's product. I could find link after link, after link explaining why the whole "SHS is a killer/SHS is harmful" bunk is a false accusation that has no bearing what so ever, but it won't do any good, I fear.
smokers are an easy target.
Yes, so let's do away wiith them completely. It doesn't matter that there's no concrete proof/hard data that supports their SHS claims. We don't like them, so they automatically have no rights/freedoms, and that's good enough for us.
:whatever:
-
Where the tobacco companies screwed the pooch is putting in all of the additives. I'm of the impression that were cigarettes just plain tobacco, they wouldn't have had the massive lawsuits that the tobacco companies have experienced. The tobacco companies went out of their way to get people addicted.
-
Where the tobacco companies screwed the pooch is putting in all of the additives. I'm of the impression that were cigarettes just plain tobacco, they wouldn't have had the massive lawsuits that the tobacco companies have experienced. The tobacco companies went out of their way to get people addicted.
Totally agree with that, because it shows intent to addict people beyond what tobacco normally does. Juries don't look kindly on that kind of manipulation, especially when they deny it in court. The documents said otherwise.
-
Revolution:
I'll tell ya; it doesn't take long to see which side of the aisle you're on, dose it?
Rev, I've already stated that I qualify as a smoking hater. See reply #59. I also explained the reasons why and I flat-out admit that my reasons are not just based in fact and personal experience with tobacco, but also have an emotional element with a family member (my mother) who smoked herself to death.
Let me be clearer in one statement I made: Smokers are easy political targets. Is that a more accurate statement?
-
http://www.fox21online.com/news/smoking-ban-hits-wisconsin-bars-restaurants
It went into effect 3 days ago. There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. This owner of a bar says it better than I could.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUDd8ZQpYvU&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]
She's right about wintertime. Watch things begin to heat up around Oct/Nov. Though, I'm already seeing people outside bitching legitimately while they smoke. I'm actually also seeing cops roll by the bars 4-5 times every few nights. They just glare at those standing outside exercising their rights. I know what's coming too. They can't control outside on the sidewalk, so they'll start citing people for littering just to fill their stinkin' kauffers.
This is a clear breach of freedom. Went into effect THE DAY AFTER INDEPENDENCE DAY!! How's that for cruel irony? I actually went to my local watering hole yesterday. Talked to some of the bar backs. One was telling me that he's going to lose 1/3 of his business/tips most likely. I was talking about making bars "Private clubs" Charge 8-12 bucks for a little plastic card membership, and make it a free establishment. Emphatic no. That guy seems scared to death, actually. I don't blame him. Fighting against stuff like this is tough. I understand him being worried about his livelihood. However, sometimes it is necessary.
Truckstops are the same way now. Can't smoke in any of those. I know because my father works at one. Employees who even walk on any ground not deemed "acceptable" to smoke outside on the premises are subject to punishment. It used to be that you could smoke in the restaurant, the convenience area, and truckers could smoke basically everywhere but the bathrooms. Including the theatre, and entertainment room.
Things are not the same anymore, and it's all because of prohibitionists. They are the ones who are behind this thing. The thing about these animals is that they don't stop. The fight to banish booze is not over with them. They're making strong headway on tobacco, (and it'll get worse) and the VERY NEXT thing these shits are going for is what they deem to be unhealthy food/drink. Look what has happened in San Francisco, California? Vending machines are no longer allowed to carry carbonated drinks, or even flavored water! Instead, it is being instructed that these machines carry crap like soy milk, and rice milk.
California's economy isn't bad enough already, right? Wisconsin's economy isn't bad enough already without Emperor Doyle gumming up the works even further, right?
I cannot tell any of you how infuriating this kind of stuff is to me. I can only keep typing...
I totally hear ya!
Minnesota enacted this a few years ago. Folks adjust, though.
I quit a few years ago after smoking for 40 years and then having a stroke. Smoking is for certain NOT a good idea.
My guy still smokes though...........makes me cough.
-
Smoking is banned inside every workplace, within 15 feet of any entrance to a workplace, many public areas including some beaches and so on.
Smoking is bad for you - but it should still be the right of the owner of private property and business to dictate the terms of service on his/her property or in his/her own business - much as it's the right of any customer or employee to choose not work there if smoke concerns them.
-
As a non smoker, I think it's great that it's been outlawed out of restaurants. I hate the smell of smoke and smokers.... :bolt:
Same here.
Nevada might reverse no smoking laws for taverns that sell food. Drinking & smoking go hand in hand most of the time and I already don't visit most of those places.
-
Revolution:
Rev, I've already stated that I qualify as a smoking hater. See reply #59. I also explained the reasons why and I flat-out admit that my reasons are not just based in fact and personal experience with tobacco, but also have an emotional element with a family member (my mother) who smoked herself to death.
I've extremely sorry to hear about that, but like me, it was your mother's choice to smoke. I have had loved ones die because they smoked/drank as well. Hurts like hell, but it hasn't changed my stance that they have a right to do so whether anyone likes it or not. I do not allow my good sense to be clouded by disdain for a product.
However, this discussion isn't about 1st hand smoking per se. It's about 2nd hand smoke, and whether it has an effect/damages. So far, the science on it is nill, and you can go back to I think page 3 to check what needs to happen for something to be a proper scientific study.
Let me be clearer in one statement I made: Smokers are easy political targets. Is that a more accurate statement?
No Eupher, you were certainly accurate in your first statement. It just doesn't make it right.
-
I've extremely sorry to hear about that, but like me, it was your mother's choice to smoke. I have had loved ones die because they smoked/drank as well. Hurts like hell, but it hasn't changed my stance that they have a right to do so whether anyone likes it or not. I do not allow my good sense to be clouded by disdain for a product.
However, this discussion isn't about 1st hand smoking per se. It's about 2nd hand smoke, and whether it has an effect/damages. So far, the science on it is nill, and you can go back to I think page 3 to check what needs to happen for something to be a proper scientific study.
No Eupher, you were certainly accurate in your first statement. It just doesn't make it right.
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree -- first, because your OP complained long and loud about how "rights" were being impugned. The SHS thing was an offshoot to that initial volley.
Secondly, please don't preach to me about what constitutes a "proper scientific study". I just don't believe you're in a position to know much about that -- if I'm wrong, please lay out your bonafides.
I'm betting on the very real and very public defeat that the tobacco companies suffered when juries awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages when the subject of SHS came up. You don't have to agree with that, you simply have to acknowledge that it occurred. You can say what you want about how the SHS data are "skewed", but those arguments apparently fell on deaf ears. I dare say that juries are given access to data that you and I may not even be permitted to read about.
Thanks for your sentiments regarding my mother. It happened about 10 years ago, so I've been through the grieving process.
-
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree -- first, because your OP complained long and loud about how "rights" were being impugned. The SHS thing was an offshoot to that initial volley.
The "meat" of the complaint was supposed to be based on the SHS stuff since it is the forefront of why the stripping of rights is taking place. The cause is SHS, and the effect is smoking being banned almost everywhere, basically. The day smoking is banned walking down the street is the day I exercise my civil protest rights daily.
Secondly, please don't preach to me about what constitutes a "proper scientific study". I just don't believe you're in a position to know much about that -- if I'm wrong, please lay out your bonafides.
I don't have any "bona fides" in terms of courses, credits, or degrees. I do however have eyes, and the tool of research. Both very powerful tools.
I'm betting on the very real and very public defeat that the tobacco companies suffered when juries awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages when the subject of SHS came up. You don't have to agree with that, you simply have to acknowledge that it occurred. You can say what you want about how the SHS data are "skewed", but those arguments apparently fell on deaf ears. I dare say that juries are given access to data that you and I may not even be permitted to read about.
Oh, I acknowledge that it occured, but I'd have loved to see every bit of evidence they had that merited "damages," which I doubt any of us will ever see. Reguardless, I question it.
Thanks for your sentiments regarding my mother. It happened about 10 years ago, so I've been through the grieving process.
Glad to hear it. ;)
-
Where the tobacco companies screwed the pooch is putting in all of the additives. I'm of the impression that were cigarettes just plain tobacco, they wouldn't have had the massive lawsuits that the tobacco companies have experienced. The tobacco companies went out of their way to get people addicted.
Majority of the additives are govt mandated they add.
-
Ohio has had a smoking ban for a few years now. Bars and bowling alleys have really been affected, especially on border cities like Cincinnati. People just go over the river to KY. Covington and Newport have been and still are exploding.
People who voted for this change said that the reason they didn't go to bars and bowling alleys was because of the smoke. Guess what, they still aren't going. What ever happened to just not going somewhere if you don't like the atmosphere? I know a couple who quit going to Applebee's before the smoking ban because they didn't allow smoking. It was a business decision by Applebee's and it should be left to the business.
-
Ohio has had a smoking ban for a few years now. Bars and bowling alleys have really been affected, especially on border cities like Cincinnati. People just go over the river to KY. Covington and Newport have been and still are exploding.
People who voted for this change said that the reason they didn't go to bars and bowling alleys was because of the smoke. Guess what, they still aren't going. What ever happened to just not going somewhere if you don't like the atmosphere? I know a couple who quit going to Applebee's before the smoking ban because they didn't allow smoking. It was a business decision by Applebee's and it should be left to the business.
Covington and Newport are going to continue to explode because the two cities were smart to take down the old stuff, particularly some really trashy areas along the water in Newport, and add all sorts of "fun" stuff, great waterfront hotels, wonderful restaurants, revitalize "downtown" Covington, with some great restaurants.
-
Government Wants Your Individual Obesity Rating By 2014 (http://www.huliq.com/10017/government-wants-your-individual-obesity-rating-2014)
Submitted by KC Kelly Ph.D. on 2010-07-16
All Americans, by 2014 will be required to have an individual obesity rating electronically recorded. It has been determined that under the new health stimulus law passed by President Barack Obama recently, that all Americans, by 2014, will be required to have electronic health records which will include their height, weight and body mass index (BMI).
BMI is a formula that calculates ones body measurements, including height and weight, in order to come up with an individual obesity rating. Calculation of BMI is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity and coming up with an obesity rating, which is the measure of a person’s body fat percentage.
Regina Benjamin, the U.S. Surgeon Genera stated that according to the CDC, “BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.â€
America has been criticized for being a nation that actually promotes obesity and hence leads American's to have health issues. The new health regulation also stipulates that the electronic records, including BMI will be able to quickly send individual health records as public health data to state and federal health agencies such as the HHS and the CDC.
The new obesity-rating regulation will be enforced in every American's electronic health record. The regulation states that it must, “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.†In addition, these electronic health records will be available for viewing on a national exchange. Seems a bit invasive, say many, but there will be security measures in place on these electronic records to try to help with privacy. ...................
-
Ohio has had a smoking ban for a few years now. Bars and bowling alleys have really been affected, especially on border cities like Cincinnati. People just go over the river to KY. Covington and Newport have been and still are exploding.
People who voted for this change said that the reason they didn't go to bars and bowling alleys was because of the smoke. Guess what, they still aren't going. What ever happened to just not going somewhere if you don't like the atmosphere? I know a couple who quit going to Applebee's before the smoking ban because they didn't allow smoking. It was a business decision by Applebee's and it should be left to the business.
Our suburban community in Missouri took a rather pragmatic approach. Smoking is banned in restaurants (that do not serve alcohol) and other public venues, however bars (including those serving food), bowling alleys, private clubs, and pool halls are allowed to choose whether to allow smoking or not. Should they choose to allow it, they pay an additional $20 per year for their business license, are required to provide a nonsmoking area, and the City gives them a sign that is posted at the entrance marking it as a "smoking establishment"......seems to be working out fine.
There are a number of nonsmoking bars and restaurants, and some that allow smoking........everyone is happy, except for the anti-smoking Nazi control freaks......and nobody really cares about them anyway.
So fine in fact that since we are suburban, and smoking is banned completely in the city of KC (except in casinos), the bar business here has increased over 150% since the change, providing more revenue to the city coffers.......
Bans are silly.....allow merchants to make a choice......along with the customers.
doc
-
Majority of the additives are govt mandated they add.
Are you saying that the extra nicotine and flavor enhancers are government mandated??
The only government mandated additive that I'm aware of or can find is the chemical used to make them "fire safe".
FSC cigarettes even more dangerous?
After lighting up are you experiencing more headaches, stomach cramps or a coppery taste in your mouth? Does your new FSC (fire-safe cigarette) taste bad, cause dry mouth and are you coughing more?
New York State was one of the first states to require that cigarettes be made with the new fire-safe paper. This paper is constructed by gluing two or three thin bands of less-porous paper together with an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer emulsion based adhesive (carpet glue).
These papers have bands (see image) that act as speed bumps, so if the cigarette is left unattended it will self-extinguish. The coalitions that passed these laws believe that these cigarettes would limit the number of cigarette fire deaths.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-11705-NY-Holistic-Body--Spirit-Examiner~y2009m7d12-Are-the-new-FSC-firesafe-cigarettes-making-smokers-sicker-than-ever
-
Are you saying that the extra nicotine and flavor enhancers are government mandated??
The only government mandated additive that I'm aware of or can find is the chemical used to make them "fire safe".
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-11705-NY-Holistic-Body--Spirit-Examiner~y2009m7d12-Are-the-new-FSC-firesafe-cigarettes-making-smokers-sicker-than-ever
Naw the nicotine spikes are by the manufacturer. The govt mandated additives are as you mentioned the fire safe additive,Then there is perfumes to reduce the smell and the additive to make cigs burn slower and I'm sure there are a few more,
-
I may have to add to the name of this thread "....and the home" sooner rather than later...
Wisconsin's youth are struggling for breath, as the state was among the top five in the nation with high levels of secondhand smoke exposure for children 17 and younger.
About 10.5 percent of Wisconsin children were regularly exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes in 2007, according to an article published in this month's health journal Pediatrics.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/health_med_fit/article_4188162a-9b51-11df-aafc-001cc4c002e0.html
I've been saying it. They're going to start intruding into your homes based on a lie with the smoking issue. Next could be anything. Restrictions on food because of the carcinogens in food, hell, the sky is the limit.
At what point do we say ENOUGH!?!
-
They are pushing legislation to ban smoking in private homes?
-
Looks like it, doesn't it.
-
Haven't some cities already banned smoking in cars if a minor is present? In Illinois you cannot smoke in your home if you run a home business and customers enter your home.
IIRC, there was a case of some guy being sued for smoking outside because the smoke bothered his neighbor.
-
IIRC, there was a case of some guy being sued for smoking outside because the smoke bothered his neighbor.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
-
Haven't some cities already banned smoking in cars if a minor is present? In Illinois you cannot smoke in your home if you run a home business and customers enter your home.
IIRC, there was a case of some guy being sued for smoking outside because the smoke bothered his neighbor.
Honestly, you are a putz of the highest order to smoke in a vehicle when your child is strapped in a car seat. Disgusting.
I just did a quick search and foster parents are forbidden to smoke in their homes, which they kind of sign on to when they became a foster parent.
I really don't see this legislation ever applying to private homes however.
-
People didn't think a lot of things that are happening nowdays would happen.
I'm banking on the legislation passing. I'm also banking on the fact that I may well go to jail for civil disobedience if it indeed does happen.
-
Guys I smoked for almost 30 years. I was NEVER so glad as when the smoking ban kicked in here in WI. After I quit it was all I could do not to puke when we tried to eat in restaurants that had smoking sections. Or I would walk in and I would instantly want a smoke if I was having a bad day. I started going to non-smoking establishments by choice.
Im glad for the ban. *shrug*
-
Honestly, you are a putz of the highest order to smoke in a vehicle when your child is strapped in a car seat. Disgusting.
I just did a quick search and foster parents are forbidden to smoke in their homes, which they kind of sign on to when they became a foster parent.
I really don't see this legislation ever applying to private homes however.
You really need to read the bullshit lawsuits out there against smokers. I recall one homeowner getting sued because he smoked (inside his house) and the smoke drifted into the neighbors house. I think Revolution is right, it will ultimately come to where the Government will mandate against smoking in one's own home because it has already in some areas.
Guys I smoked for almost 30 years. I was NEVER so glad as when the smoking ban kicked in here in WI. After I quit it was all I could do not to puke when we tried to eat in restaurants that had smoking sections. Or I would walk in and I would instantly want a smoke if I was having a bad day. I started going to non-smoking establishments by choice.
Im glad for the ban. *shrug*
Your keywords are bolded. You CHOSE to go to a non-smoking establishment. I'm ALL for that!! I'm against ANY ban that infringes on the rights of others. Let the owners & their customers decide. If I want a non-smoking place, I'll go find one. If I want a smoking place, I'll go find that, too. Is it really THAT difficult?? And you folks call yourselves "conservatives"........ ::) Last I knew, "Conservatives" were all FOR LESS Government intrusion into their lives, NOT more. If anything, I'd call y'all anti-smoking Nazis, "Libtards" or maybe "Progressives".......
-
Some people want the Government to fluoridate their drinking water and others want to restrict other folks' rights & privileges...... Damn........ am I posting in DU???
-
Last weekend I was talking to a buddy that is smarter than me, and we were discussing the Dallas area's crazy smoking bans. He came up with a great idea. If a city/county/district wants to ban smoking, fine. But then that same entity cannot sell cigarettes, pipe tobacco, cigars within it's boundaries so they can't make a tax profit off of it.
I thought that was a pretty good idea.
-
Last weekend I was talking to a buddy that is smarter than me, and we were discussing the Dallas area's crazy smoking bans. He came up with a great idea. If a city/county/district wants to ban smoking, fine. But then that same entity cannot sell cigarettes, pipe tobacco, cigars within it's boundaries so they can't make a tax profit off of it.
I thought that was a pretty good idea.
Yep, I think that's called "walking the walk."
But in all honesty, do cities/counties/districts/parishes collect separate taxes on tobacco products? The states do, of course, as do the Feds. I think that's the reason for that blue tax stamp across the top of the pack. I haven't smoked in 31 years, so I'm a little behind on things..... :uhsure:
-
Yep, I think that's called "walking the walk."
But in all honesty, do cities/counties/districts/parishes collect separate taxes on tobacco products? The states do, of course, as do the Feds. I think that's the reason for that blue tax stamp across the top of the pack. I haven't smoked in 31 years, so I'm a little behind on things..... :uhsure:
They collect sales tax. So, cigarettes are taxed by the state TWICE!! In Minnesota, shortly before I left, they banned smoking in bars & restaurants. Then, the state levied another $1/ pack tax on cigarettes. Seems they couldn't turn down that extra $17 MILLION per month in revenue regardless of the fact that the state also received a HUGE award from one of the tobacco industry lawsuit.
Tots: I like your friend's idea!!
-
They collect sales tax. So, cigarettes are taxed by the state TWICE!! In Minnesota, shortly before I left, they banned smoking in bars & restaurants. Then, the state levied another $1/ pack tax on cigarettes. Seems they couldn't turn down that extra $17 MILLION per month in revenue regardless of the fact that the state also received a HUGE award from one of the tobacco industry lawsuit.
Tots: I like your friend's idea!!
Look at the state's stats of those on disability (medicaid) for smoking related illnesses before claiming any revenue is "extra."
The cost of medical care and lost productivity related to smoking is conservatively estimated to be $150 billion. These costs to smokers and non-smokers alike are funded at the state and national levels.
http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_health/volume_3_number_2_21/article/financing_smoking_related_illness_and_smoking_cessation_can_it_be_done.html
-
Yep, I think that's called "walking the walk."
Walking the walk would also entail the smoker not seeking federal and state benefits should they become disabled due to their choice to smoke.
-
Walking the walk would also entail the smoker not seeking federal and state benefits should they become disabled due to their choice to smoke.
Um, I think the phrase "walking the walk" as I put it really talked toward the city/county authorities ban towards smoking, then eliminating the double standard that would exist by taxing the very product they're banning.
The smoker him/herself - yeah, I'm with you on those folks leaning on the taxpayer when their lungs stop functioning due to their choices. Why should I pay for someone else's destruction of their body due to their own habit? T'ain't right.
Same goes for fat people getting their knees replaced on the public dime due to their obesity (but that's a different thread).
-
Look at the state's stats of those on disability (medicaid) for smoking related illnesses before claiming any revenue is "extra."
The cost of medical care and lost productivity related to smoking is conservatively estimated to be $150 billion. These costs to smokers and non-smokers alike are funded at the state and national levels.
http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_health/volume_3_number_2_21/article/financing_smoking_related_illness_and_smoking_cessation_can_it_be_done.html
I'm gonna have to vehemently differ with you (and Eupher) on this conceptually........
First, any human activity can be "demonized" for political purposes........whether it is use of tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats, salt, fast food, carbonated beverages containing sugar, corn syrup, red meat, (strangely, we never hear about the fiscal health impact of male homosexual activity, which statistically reduces the practitioners lifespan to an actuarial 48 years).....on and on, ad nauseum. I become an adversary when one equates "costs the public" with any legal human activity, for a variety of reasons, mostly based in ,my interpretation of personal freedom. Virtually all of the items/activities listed above, plus inumerable others, can be determined by some manipulation of government statistics to "cost the public" something. The base issue should be why are we, the people, through our taxes, paying for health care to begin with........We (conservatives) used the "public cost" argument to support the theory of rationing, and denial of services during the debate over Obamacare........to be intellectually honest, we can't have it both ways........
The same argument is always lurking around the edges of the gun control debate.......what "might" happen, and how much it "costs the public"........we have to decide if we stand for personal freedom or not.......and we have to stand up for it even when a citizen might conduct his/her life in a manner in which we don't personally approve, so long as their life is conducted in a manner that is "legal".
The demonetization of tobacco use has opened the door to political demonetization of all types of human activity under the guise of "saving the taxpayers expense" (with the exception of homosexuality), and many of you gleefully go along with it so long as your particular ox is not being gored. Frankly it is hypocritical as hell for one to claim to be a conservative, and then whine about how the lifestyle choices of others cost you money. I'm certain that were we to commission a study we could discover a correlation between a lifetime spent playing the trombone to the taxpayer having to eventually shell out a few extra bucks for arthritic elbows, and disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums........it is all a matter of perspective, and the basic question always gets lost in the background noise.....
The question being first, why is the government involved in the issue of people's personal legal choices to begin with, and second (and perhaps most importantly) in a nation where the citizens are free to make their own lifestyle choices.......why should anyone care?
I always get a chuckle out of the discussion of the "public cost" of tobacco use (or anything else for that matter), when we tolerate the gigantic annual cost in lives, property, injury, and general mayhem created by the use/misuse of alcohol..........the costs dwarf the so-called "costs" of tobacco use by several orders of magnitude but we distainfully shrug it off by stating that "we tried to ban it with prohibition", and it didn't work.........again, intellectual dishonesty.
There is certainly nothing wrong with our government arriving at the determination that a particular activity is so great a hazard to the public at large, that it should be controlled by appropriate legislation, however, as we learned with prohibition, such attempts rarely succeed (see also "War on Drugs") and if embarked upon, should be done with extreme care.
We either believe in personal freedom or not, and if so, we will need to learn that others may conduct theirs in a manner that doesn't fit our personal template. The founders never envisioned a government that exerted its tenacles into the legal conduct of its citizens.
doc
-
I'm gonna have to vehemently differ with you (and Eupher) on this conceptually........
First, any human activity can be "demonized" for political purposes........whether it is use of tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats, salt, fast food, carbonated beverages containing sugar, corn syrup, red meat, (strangely, we never hear about the fiscal health impact of male homosexual activity, which statistically reduces the practitioners lifespan to an actuarial 48 years).....on and on, ad nauseum. I become an adversary when one equates "costs the public" with any legal human activity, for a variety of reasons, mostly based in ,my interpretation of personal freedom. Virtually all of the items/activities listed above, plus inumerable others, can be determined by some manipulation of government statistics to "cost the public" something. The base issue should be why are we, the people, through our taxes, paying for health care to begin with........We (conservatives) used the "public cost" argument to support the theory of rationing, and denial of services during the debate over Obamacare........to be intellectually honest, we can't have it both ways........
The same argument is always lurking around the edges of the gun control debate.......what "might" happen, and how much it "costs the public"........we have to decide if we stand for personal freedom or not.......and we have to stand up for it even when a citizen might conduct his/her life in a manner in which we don't personally approve, so long as their life is conducted in a manner that is "legal".
The demonetization of tobacco use has opened the door to political demonetization of all types of human activity under the guise of "saving the taxpayers expense" (with the exception of homosexuality), and many of you gleefully go along with it so long as your particular ox is not being gored. Frankly it is hypocritical as hell for one to claim to be a conservative, and then whine about how the lifestyle choices of others cost you money. I'm certain that were we to commission a study we could discover a correlation between a lifetime spent playing the trombone to the taxpayer having to eventually shell out a few extra bucks for arthritic elbows, and disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums........it is all a matter of perspective, and the basic question always gets lost in the background noise.....
The question being first, why is the government involved in the issue of people's personal legal choices to begin with, and second (and perhaps most importantly) in a nation where the citizens are free to make their own lifestyle choices.......why should anyone care?
I always get a chuckle out of the discussion of the "public cost" of tobacco use (or anything else for that matter), when we tolerate the gigantic annual cost in lives, property, injury, and general mayhem created by the use/misuse of alcohol..........the costs dwarf the so-called "costs" of tobacco use by several orders of magnitude but we distainfully shrug it off by stating that "we tried to ban it with prohibition", and it didn't work.........again, intellectual dishonesty.
There is certainly nothing wrong with our government arriving at the determination that a particular activity is so great a hazard to the public at large, that it should be controlled by appropriate legislation, however, as we learned with prohibition, such attempts rarely succeed (see also "War on Drugs") and if embarked upon, should be done with extreme care.
We either believe in personal freedom or not, and if so, we will need to learn that others may conduct theirs in a manner that doesn't fit our personal template. The founders never envisioned a government that exerted its tenacles into the legal conduct of its citizens.
doc
Damn straight Doc :cheersmate:
Freedom & personal responsibility WOW what a concept::)
-
Where I live you can't smoke in the football stadium. And it's OUTDOORS! :mental:
-
I'm gonna have to vehemently differ with you (and Eupher) on this conceptually........
First, any human activity can be "demonized" for political purposes........whether it is use of tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats, salt, fast food, carbonated beverages containing sugar, corn syrup, red meat, (strangely, we never hear about the fiscal health impact of male homosexual activity, which statistically reduces the practitioners lifespan to an actuarial 48 years).....on and on, ad nauseum. I become an adversary when one equates "costs the public" with any legal human activity, for a variety of reasons, mostly based in ,my interpretation of personal freedom. Virtually all of the items/activities listed above, plus inumerable others, can be determined by some manipulation of government statistics to "cost the public" something. The base issue should be why are we, the people, through our taxes, paying for health care to begin with........We (conservatives) used the "public cost" argument to support the theory of rationing, and denial of services during the debate over Obamacare........to be intellectually honest, we can't have it both ways........
The same argument is always lurking around the edges of the gun control debate.......what "might" happen, and how much it "costs the public"........we have to decide if we stand for personal freedom or not.......and we have to stand up for it even when a citizen might conduct his/her life in a manner in which we don't personally approve, so long as their life is conducted in a manner that is "legal".
The demonetization of tobacco use has opened the door to political demonetization of all types of human activity under the guise of "saving the taxpayers expense" (with the exception of homosexuality), and many of you gleefully go along with it so long as your particular ox is not being gored. Frankly it is hypocritical as hell for one to claim to be a conservative, and then whine about how the lifestyle choices of others cost you money. I'm certain that were we to commission a study we could discover a correlation between a lifetime spent playing the trombone to the taxpayer having to eventually shell out a few extra bucks for arthritic elbows, and disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums........it is all a matter of perspective, and the basic question always gets lost in the background noise.....
The question being first, why is the government involved in the issue of people's personal legal choices to begin with, and second (and perhaps most importantly) in a nation where the citizens are free to make their own lifestyle choices.......why should anyone care?
I always get a chuckle out of the discussion of the "public cost" of tobacco use (or anything else for that matter), when we tolerate the gigantic annual cost in lives, property, injury, and general mayhem created by the use/misuse of alcohol..........the costs dwarf the so-called "costs" of tobacco use by several orders of magnitude but we distainfully shrug it off by stating that "we tried to ban it with prohibition", and it didn't work.........again, intellectual dishonesty.
There is certainly nothing wrong with our government arriving at the determination that a particular activity is so great a hazard to the public at large, that it should be controlled by appropriate legislation, however, as we learned with prohibition, such attempts rarely succeed (see also "War on Drugs") and if embarked upon, should be done with extreme care.
We either believe in personal freedom or not, and if so, we will need to learn that others may conduct theirs in a manner that doesn't fit our personal template. The founders never envisioned a government that exerted its tenacles into the legal conduct of its citizens.
doc
My comments on medicaid costs were related to taxing cigarettes.
-
Formerlurker: and your assessment may not be wrong, but this is WHY many states got Billions of dollars from their tobacco lawsuits. All they are doing is taxing the smoker some more just because they can and want the extra money. So, ask yourself, what have the states done with the money they received from the tobacco companies?? Did they put it aside for smoking related illnesses like they were supposed to?? I doubt it. I know for a fact that MN didn't.
All in all, I agree with Doc's assessment. Y'all seem to be just a bunch of DUmmies in the guise of Conservatives, at least when it comes to some issues. Hypocrites, at best.
First they came for my cigarettes, but I didn't smoke...
Then they came for my alcohol, but I didn't drink...
Next they came for my salt, but I use other flavorings...
Next they came for my trans fats, but I eat healthy....
ad nauseum.......
Regardless of whether or not I smoke, the American taxpayer is going to pay for my medical care and will continue to pay for it. That's a benefit I've EARNED. I don't live a risky lifestyle, but I'm far from perfect. We all have our flaws and to NOT admit that is supercilious.
-
better be careful. right after they get my cigarettes, the will come after chocolate.
-
Nice rant, Doc, but I'm afraid your fears don't square with the reality that's happening.
Fact remains that the government HAS interceded in our lives - in some cases to an intolerable level, in many cases, not enough. As you sagely pointed out it's a matter of perspective.
We've all got an opinion on the issue. That's great, but the laws are still being passed.
Personal freedoms have been chipped away since the beginning. I'd go so far as to say that Chief Justice John Marshall may have been one of the first that started the chipping process and in some cases the politicians and the courts have gotten out sledge hammers and chain saws to hew away personal freedoms.
We can cry and wring our hands and demonize each other, calling ourselves hypocrites and any other name we like, but it alters nothing. Slowly and steadily, cities and towns across America are banning smoking from public places.
I believe in personal responsibility and accountability just as much as anybody here. But I also believe in legal protections from the lifestyles of others. If that takes government intervention to keep those lifestyles from interfering with mine, I'm okay with that - pure and simple. Since there are an abundance of truly stupid people on this planet, those who honestly have no clue what their personal choices do to other people, that it takes the government to protect some from others. It gives me no pleasure to say that, but it is a political and personal reality.
Playing the Kum Bah Yah thing, it would be wonderful if we could all live in harmony. But we don't. Some people piss me the hell off and I'm quite sure that I manage to piss off others just as strongly. The upshot is, we can't depend on our common sense to deal with this and other issues. It takes laws and regulations to control behavior.
I'd agree with you that alcohol is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room that everybody sees, but ignores. Regulating the ingestion of alcohol already happens to some level - can't do it legally if you're under 18 no matter WHERE you are, much less in a private home. And yet it's still a problem. DWIs and domestic violence occurs all the time by those under the influence, and there are worse things that happen.
I believe what's happening here is that smokers are now a beleaguered minority. They simply don't have the political clout they might've had, say back in the Forties and Fifties. Ergo, THEIR rights are being chipped away. While there is a hue and a cry about personal freedoms and such being eroded, the political reality is, it is what it is. Those who don't smoke don't give enough of a rip to address your concerns, and Thor's concerns. Why? Because it doesn't affect them, except that when they walk into an establishment somewhere they're not accosted by the stink of tobacco.
Now that's a personal freedom I can wrap my lungs around.
-
We either believe in personal freedom or not, and if so, we will need to learn that others may conduct theirs in a manner that doesn't fit our personal template. The founders never envisioned a government that exerted its tenacles into the legal conduct of its citizens.
doc
You can drive a car - you can not drive 150mph. You can smoke if you choose - you can not smoke in a restaurant. Like it or not the government is is control, and it isn't about personal responsibility when your right to smoke interferes with my right to breathe fresh air.
-
All in all, I agree with Doc's assessment. Y'all seem to be just a bunch of DUmmies in the guise of Conservatives, at least when it comes to some issues. Hypocrites, at best.
That's weak at best. "We're more conservative because we want to smoke in public." Whatever, you sound more like a Libertarian: "the big bad, mean government can't stop me from doing whatever I want, whenever I want, and how I want." Last I checked we believe in the rule of law and smoking in public is fast going against that rule - thank effing God; if you don't like it you can run for office, or try to vote in your local dope smoking Lib-ertarian.
-
Formerlurker: and your assessment may not be wrong, but this is WHY many states got Billions of dollars from their tobacco lawsuits. All they are doing is taxing the smoker some more just because they can and want the extra money. So, ask yourself, what have the states done with the money they received from the tobacco companies?? Did they put it aside for smoking related illnesses like they were supposed to?? I doubt it. I know for a fact that MN didn't.
Medicaid costs in my state is bankrupting the Commonwealth. Money secured is money spent. My state spends billions on medicaid yearly.
All in all, I agree with Doc's assessment. Y'all seem to be just a bunch of DUmmies in the guise of Conservatives, at least when it comes to some issues. Hypocrites, at best.
You have a right to smoke, and too freakin bad if your smoke gets blown in my, or my children's face -- it's all about you right?
I am going to let the insult slide as I appear to be one of the few who isn't hyper-emotional over this topic.
First they came for my cigarettes, but I didn't smoke...
Then they came for my alcohol, but I didn't drink...
Next they came for my salt, but I use other flavorings...
Next they came for my trans fats, but I eat healthy....
ad nauseum......
You drive drunk, then there is a problem. Your drinking = neglect of your children, then there is a problem.
You eating salt or trans fat at a table does not affect the diners near you. Anything banning the two is ridiculous and actually fits into your argument.
Regardless of whether or not I smoke, the American taxpayer is going to pay for my medical care and will continue to pay for it. That's a benefit I've EARNED. I don't live a risky lifestyle, but I'm far from perfect. We all have our flaws and to NOT admit that is supercilious.
You didn't earn Medicaid.
-
You can drive a car - you can not drive 150mph. You can smoke if you choose - you can not smoke in a restaurant. Like it or not the government is is control, and it isn't about personal responsibility when your right to smoke interferes with my right to breathe fresh air.
I would have just agreed with your post if I saw this prior to typing out my other one -- exactly. When your habits interfere with my rights then guess what? that's a problem.
-
Y'all STILL don't get it, do you?? Who are YOU to say what business does what, other than NOT being a customer. FFS, y'all are a dense and obstinate crowd. Y'all are FREE to have your ****ing non-smoking restaurants and bars. I could give a ****. I may or may not choose to go there. IF I DO CHOOSE to go there, then I'll have to abide by those rules, wouldn't I??
Now, why the **** do y'all want to control whether or not a bar or restaurant wants to be a smoking allowed establishment?? NOBODY'S forcing y'all to go there, are they?? If you don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, DON'T ****ING go there !!!! Now, how simple is THAT ?!?!?!?! Apparently, y'all are so rabidly "anti-whatever", that you can't even tolerate an individual's or business owner's choice. That's all I'm saying........ that people should have a choice!!!
And I DO agree that bars & restaurants that simply have a smoking and non-smoking section are pretty stupid, unless the sections are separately divided rooms. And...... if a non-smoker has to walk through to smoking section to get to the non-smoking section, that's pretty dumb, too.
What I hear y'all saying is that as long as "whatever" fits within YOUR lifestyle, then you're all about "freedom". Lord forbid if something falls outside of YOUR lifestyle choices and SCREW anybody that thinks that they should have a choice, too.
Yeah, I lean towards Libertarianism, to some extent, however, I am mostly Conservative.
You didn't earn Medicaid.
No, but I DID earn Tricare..... (paid for by the American taxpayer) one of the benefits earned by being retired Military.
I'd agree with you that alcohol is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room that everybody sees, but ignores. Regulating the ingestion of alcohol already happens to some level - can't do it legally if you're under 18 no matter WHERE you are, much less in a private home. And yet it's still a problem. DWIs and domestic violence occurs all the time by those under the influence, and there are worse things that happen.
You're wrong, Eupher. In Texas (and many other states), it is legal for a parent to serve their own minor child alcohol, in their home or even in a restaurant.
-
My opinion nobody has the right to walk into a room that I'm in and start smoking. Just like the other night when I was at the Sting concert and the bitch next to me wouldn't stop talking, I told her - nicely - to STFU.
Now if they try to say people can't smoke in their own house or in the car then I'll be right next to you defending that.
I am not a smoker and I have never been a smoker. I take issue with the freedom's lost on this one. Like many have said, if you don't want to be around smoke then don't go where the smokers are. Either a business is going to change its policy or it is making its money off the smokers.
To me this issue is one that divides a lot of folks. It is one of the small things used as a wedge.
Now to answer the bold part above;
Smoking in car ban in CA (http://healthandsurvival.com/2008/01/04/smoking-in-your-car-is-illegal-in-california-good-law-or-bad-law/)
Smoking in car ban in ME (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MHRQEO1&show_article=1)
National proposal for car ban (http://thestatecom.typepad.com/ygatoday/2009/03/smoking-in-cars-with-kids-illegal-under-bill.html)
Proposal in GA (http://www.no-smoking.org/jan03/01-31-03-4.html)
New South Wales (http://www.mhcs.health.nsw.gov.au/publication_pdfs/8545/DOH-8545-ENG.pdf)
Canada anyone?? (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1202239)
Now all of those links say the same thing; "It's for the CHILDREN"
Let's see where it goes from there;
Smoking ban on private balcony (http://activerain.com/blogsview/1773028/smoking-ban-on-balconies-in-santa-monica-california)
Chicago considers outside smoking ban (http://chicagoist.com/2010/05/19/suburban_county_considers_outdoor_s.php)
Vetoed proposal to ban smoking in state parks (http://www.kron4.com/News/ArticleView/tabid/298/smid/1126/ArticleID/5883/t/Governor%20Vetoes%20State%20Parks%20Smoking%20Ban/Default.aspx)
I dunno .... you decide how far it could go.
If you allow them to go down that road (smoking in a car with a child), then me being a sun worshipper and living in the south, I say fine the shit out of any parent who will allow their child to go without sunscreen. It is child abuse plain and simple. :mental:
It's the same thing. Overexposure to the sun causes cancer does it not?
Naw, I don't smoke but I'm not for any bans other than those I impose upon myself. I'll stand with the smokers on this one.
KC
-
If you allow them to go down that road (smoking in a car with a child), then me being a sun worshipper and living in the south, I say fine the shit out of any parent who will allow their child to go without sunscreen. It is child abuse plain and simple. :mental:
It's the same thing. Overexposure to the sun causes cancer does it not?
Naw, I don't smoke but I'm not for any bans other than those I impose upon myself. I'll stand with the smokers on this one.
KC
As a matter of fact, my mom died at the age of 36 (35 years ago, almost to the day) because of malignant melanoma. How did she acquire such a disease?? She was fair skinned and like to lay out in the hot Texas sun at Lake Texoma (actually, it was the Oklahoma side). She was one of those who used baby oil & iodine. As far as I can remember, they didn't have sunscreen when I was a young lad, so I got a liberal dose of suntan lotion, which usually washed off after a dip in the lake.
-
Nice rant, Doc, but I'm afraid your fears don't square with the reality that's happening.
Not fears, facts, and they square perfectly with the concept of personal freedom and choice
Fact remains that the government HAS interceded in our lives - in some cases to an intolerable level, in many cases, not enough. As you sagely pointed out it's a matter of perspective.
We've all got an opinion on the issue. That's great, but the laws are still being passed.
And the underlying point to my dissertation is first, WHY.....and second, where does it stop.......when do we finally say enough......were we to all adopt your position, it likely never would.
Personal freedoms have been chipped away since the beginning. I'd go so far as to say that Chief Justice John Marshall may have been one of the first that started the chipping process and in some cases the politicians and the courts have gotten out sledge hammers and chain saws to hew away personal freedoms.
We can cry and wring our hands and demonize each other, calling ourselves hypocrites and any other name we like, but it alters nothing. Slowly and steadily, cities and towns across America are banning smoking from public places.
OK....lets look at it from the prospective of an absurdity......you and I live in the same block.......I'm the Mayor of your town, and am afflicted with a hypersensitive hearing disorder.......everytime you practice with your instrument, it causes me slight pain, so I pass an ordinance that forces all musicians who play brass instruments to go outside the city limits, and stand by the side of the road, in the rain, sleet, and snow, should they wish to practice.
Ridiculous, granted, but the principle is EXACTLY the same........in this case, you are an "offending minority", therefore, your rights are no longer valid, because your lifestyle offends me, and causes me some discomfort......I therefore, as a person of authority, legislate away your rights........in the interest of providing a "peaceful and tranquil environment for the community".
You can argue the minutiae forever, but the fact remains that it is the exact same thing......the only difference is it is now your "ox being gored".
I believe in personal responsibility and accountability just as much as anybody here. But I also believe in legal protections from the lifestyles of others. If that takes government intervention to keep those lifestyles from interfering with mine, I'm okay with that - pure and simple. Since there are an abundance of truly stupid people on this planet, those who honestly have no clue what their personal choices do to other people, that it takes the government to protect some from others. It gives me no pleasure to say that, but it is a political and personal reality.
Actually you don't.......the two statements in bold above are diametrically opposed when one looks at them through the lens of the freedoms that are established by our founding principles.
Yes there are many stupid people on the planet, and you are quite free to remove yourself from their presence should you choose to do so, however, you are not free to legislate away their freedoms because their stupidity offends you,,,,,,,,,
It takes laws and regulations to control behavior.
WHY.....So long as said behavior is legal.......there is no need to regulate it because it might offend you, as you are again free to remove yourself from its presence.
I'd agree with you that alcohol is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room that everybody sees, but ignores. Regulating the ingestion of alcohol already happens to some level - can't do it legally if you're under 18 no matter WHERE you are, much less in a private home. And yet it's still a problem. DWI and domestic violence occurs all the time by those under the influence, and there are worse things that happen.
Which brings us to the proverbrial "bottom line"........in a free country people are free to do stupid things so long as what they do is legal.........we are going to continue to have public expense due to use of alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and anal sex for that matter........STFU about it........it is part of life here, stop trying to advocate for the legislation and control of everything that might get your boxers in a knot.......if you find yourself in a situation that is uncomfortable, either don't go there to begin with, or vote with your feet......
I believe what's happening here is that smokers are now a beleaguered minority. They simply don't have the political clout they might've had, say back in the Forties and Fifties. Ergo, THEIR rights are being chipped away. While there is a hue and a cry about personal freedoms and such being eroded, the political reality is, it is what it is. Those who don't smoke don't give enough of a rip to address your concerns, and Thor's concerns. Why? Because it doesn't affect them, except that when they walk into an establishment somewhere they're not accosted by the stink of tobacco.
Now that's a personal freedom I can wrap my lungs around.
I'll remember that when I see you standing by the side of US 63, practicing your trombone in a blizzard......... :-)
doc
-
Eupher, did I smoke when you were at my house?? No. Out of respect, I didn't.
Did I sit in the non-smoking section of the bar restaurant when we had a burger?? Sure I did.
Did you hear any protests?? No.
The fact is, if I want to go to a place that doesn't allow smoking (and there ARE many of them here), I follow the wishes of the owner. Why is it that smokers can't be allowed to have a place (a bar or restaurant) of their own to go to and smoke, drink, & eat to their hearts content?? Am I forcing you to go to that place?? No, I'm not. Nor am I forcing anyone to bring their children to those places. For the most part, I loathe children any more because they are unruly, whiny, obnoxious and lack discipline. I would like it were there a place that simply doesn't allow children, period. Can I find one?? No. Hell, even the VFW is infested with children from time to time. Furthermore, I have a lot of disdain for people who bring their children into the smoking section of many restaurants. IHOP has a segregated smoking section. That smoking section is still filled with kids from time to time. I DO remember a time when parents would be asked to leave if their kids were unruly (I was one of those that was unruly from time to time) I can't tell you how many times I got sent to the car to wait until my mom and grandmother were finished with their meal. In today's world, that would constitute neglect or even child abuse. Back then, it was common. Of course, it wasn't a locked car with the windows rolled up. If it was hot, I rolled down the windows.
-
Y'all STILL don't get it, do you?? Who are YOU to say what business does what, other than NOT being a customer. FFS, y'all are a dense and obstinate crowd. Y'all are FREE to have your ****ing non-smoking restaurants and bars. I could give a ****. I may or may not choose to go there. IF I DO CHOOSE to go there, then I'll have to abide by those rules, wouldn't I??
Now, why the **** do y'all want to control whether or not a bar or restaurant wants to be a smoking allowed establishment?? NOBODY'S forcing y'all to go there, are they?? If you don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, DON'T ****ING go there !!!! Now, how simple is THAT ?!?!?!?! Apparently, y'all are so rabidly "anti-whatever", that you can't even tolerate an individual's or business owner's choice. That's all I'm saying........ that people should have a choice!!!
And I DO agree that bars & restaurants that simply have a smoking and non-smoking section are pretty stupid, unless the sections are separately divided rooms. And...... if a non-smoker has to walk through to smoking section to get to the non-smoking section, that's pretty dumb, too.
What I hear y'all saying is that as long as "whatever" fits within YOUR lifestyle, then you're all about "freedom". Lord forbid if something falls outside of YOUR lifestyle choices and SCREW anybody that thinks that they should have a choice, too.
Yeah, I lean towards Libertarianism, to some extent, however, I am mostly Conservative.
The topic was resurrected over banning smoking in private homes, which is what I was addressing. You are hardly unbiased, so your finger pointing is baffling.
No, but I DID earn Tricare..... (paid for by the American taxpayer) one of the benefits earned by being retired Military.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Medicaid and why cigarettes are taxed.
-
For the record, the state and local municipalities also regulate when a bar or restaurant can be open, what type of food they can serve, how much alcohol they can serve per patron, parking of vehicles on their property..... the list is rather extensive.
It's the ban on smoking though that is the violation of personal freedoms...... first they come for happy hour, then they come for number of spaces I have to have in my parking lot, then they come for the fire exits and sprinkler systems, and can you believe they check the temp of the food I serve?
Whatever. :whatever:
-
Not fears, facts, and they square perfectly with the concept of personal freedom and choice
And the underlying point to my dissertation is first, WHY.....and second, where does it stop.......when do we finally say enough......were we to all adopt your position, it likely never would.
OK....lets look at it from the prospective of an absurdity......you and I live in the same block.......I'm the Mayor of your town, and am afflicted with a hypersensitive hearing disorder.......everytime you practice with your instrument, it causes me slight pain, so I pass an ordinance that forces all musicians who play brass instruments to go outside the city limits, and stand by the side of the road, in the rain, sleet, and snow, should they wish to practice.
Ridiculous, granted, but the principle is EXACTLY the same........in this case, you are an "offending minority", therefore, your rights are no longer valid, because your lifestyle offends me, and causes me some discomfort......I therefore, as a person of authority, legislate away your rights........in the interest of providing a "peaceful and tranquil environment for the community".
You can argue the minutiae forever, but the fact remains that it is the exact same thing......the only difference is it is now your "ox being gored".
Actually you don't.......the two statements in bold above are diametrically opposed when one looks at them through the lens of the freedoms that are established by our founding principles.
Yes there are many stupid people on the planet, and you are quite free to remove yourself from their presence should you choose to do so, however, you are not free to legislate away their freedoms because their stupidity offends you,,,,,,,,,
WHY.....So long as said behavior is legal.......there is no need to regulate it because it might offend you, as you are again free to remove yourself from its presence.
Which brings us to the proverbrial "bottom line"........in a free country people are free to do stupid things so long as what they do is legal.........we are going to continue to have public expense due to use of alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and anal sex for that matter........STFU about it........it is part of life here, stop trying to advocate for the legislation and control of everything that might get your boxers in a knot.......if you find yourself in a situation that is uncomfortable, either don't go there to begin with, or vote with your feet......
I'll remember that when I see you standing by the side of US 63, practicing your trombone in a blizzard......... :-)
doc
We're all starting to say the same things, over and over again. Frankly, I'm a little surprised at your vehemence - you're not normally this forceful.
In response to your hypothetical situation about practicing and your sensitive hearing, Mr. Mayor, you can believe me when I tell you that due to MY LIFESTYLE, I have to take certain precautions where I live. I can't live in an apartment. I can't live in a condo. And I really can't live in a house where my neighbor can count my nosehairs through the bathroom window. The reason is obvious - the level of sound both I and Mrs E generate simply doesn't allow it. So I have to live where I live - far enough away where MY CHOSEN LIFESTYLE isn't impacting others or I begin an expensive soundproofing project that might solve the problem in a different way.
Why do I do these things? Because I respect my neighbors. I can't say the same about everyone. And isn't the entire purpose of creating and enforcing laws in general to regulate behavior? That's a straight up yes or no question, doc. To pick and choose which laws conflict with personal freedom versus those that don't puts the onus at a different level of law, doesn't it? Who's going to make that decision?
Why are there noise ordinances in some areas/towns? It's to protect normal citizens from stupidity by others. Are you suggesting that all such ordinances be taken off the books? If you do so, Mr. Mayor, you're going to have a bunch of pissed-off citizens and you just might find yourself out of a job. This is the political reality I'm talking about.
Like it or not, the smoking establishment is bowing to a larger majority. This is my point. Life is not fair - and neither is this matter.
And believe me - I've played outdoors in plenty of blizzards. Ain't gonna happen no more. :beer:
-
Eupher, did I smoke when you were at my house?? No. Out of respect, I didn't.
Yes, I noticed that, and we both appreciated your graciousness. I simply wish that everybody would be that way, but it isn't the case. I have to say I didn't notice an extensive cigarette odor either, which tells me that either you don't smoke a lot or you have lots of air-moving going on.
Did I sit in the non-smoking section of the bar restaurant when we had a burger?? Sure I did.
Again, a sign of your graciousness. I absolutely can't eat in an area that is choked with cigarette smoke. If I'm asked to, I politely decline and move elsewhere.
Did you hear any protests?? No.
The fact is, if I want to go to a place that doesn't allow smoking (and there ARE many of them here), I follow the wishes of the owner. Why is it that smokers can't be allowed to have a place (a bar or restaurant) of their own to go to and smoke, drink, & eat to their hearts content?? Am I forcing you to go to that place?? No, I'm not. Nor am I forcing anyone to bring their children to those places. For the most part, I loathe children any more because they are unruly, whiny, obnoxious and lack discipline. I would like it were there a place that simply doesn't allow children, period. Can I find one?? No. Hell, even the VFW is infested with children from time to time. Furthermore, I have a lot of disdain for people who bring their children into the smoking section of many restaurants. IHOP has a segregated smoking section. That smoking section is still filled with kids from time to time. I DO remember a time when parents would be asked to leave if their kids were unruly (I was one of those that was unruly from time to time) I can't tell you how many times I got sent to the car to wait until my mom and grandmother were finished with their meal. In today's world, that would constitute neglect or even child abuse. Back then, it was common. Of course, it wasn't a locked car with the windows rolled up. If it was hot, I rolled down the windows.
We've rehashed this in previous discussions. We can definitely find some common ground in the case of kids. I don't want to be around them either.
Didja ever start to think that maybe you're the way you are because of being sent to the car and being forced to roll the windows open? I think it's called heat on the brain. :-)
-
Didja ever start to think that maybe you're the way you are because of being sent to the car and being forced to roll the windows open? I think it's called heat on the brain. :-)
NO, it wasn't the "heat". I come by it naturally!! :o :tongue: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
(Either it's a symptom of my disease, or I'm too much like my real father, OR TOO many years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club....... OR a combination of all of the above!!)
-
We're all starting to say the same things, over and over again. Frankly, I'm a little surprised at your vehemence - you're not normally this forceful.
In response to your hypothetical situation about practicing and your sensitive hearing, Mr. Mayor, you can believe me when I tell you that due to MY LIFESTYLE, I have to take certain precautions where I live. I can't live in an apartment. I can't live in a condo. And I really can't live in a house where my neighbor can count my nosehairs through the bathroom window. The reason is obvious - the level of sound both I and Mrs E generate simply doesn't allow it. So I have to live where I live - far enough away where MY CHOSEN LIFESTYLE isn't impacting others or I begin an expensive soundproofing project that might solve the problem in a different way.
Why do I do these things? Because I respect my neighbors. I can't say the same about everyone. And isn't the entire purpose of creating and enforcing laws in general to regulate behavior? That's a straight up yes or no question, doc. To pick and choose which laws conflict with personal freedom versus those that don't puts the onus at a different level of law, doesn't it? Who's going to make that decision?
The original intent of the "law" is to regulate criminal behavior........not legal behavior.......further, if the intent of a law is to protect "public safety", then the test should be, does it equally effect ALL of the public, and not a small segment thereof.
If you wish to campaign to make tobacco use illegal, be my guest.....but so long as it is legal, businesses should be allowed to choose whether they wish to permit it, as a part of the concept of "private property", whether the public participates in those businesses or not.
And yes, I'm more than vehement about it, because I'm damn tired of a bunch of do-gooders trying to regulate what I do, for example, if I wish to drive a vehicle that gets 8 mpg, so long as I can afford to buy the damn gas, it's no one's business but my own, that includes the government........I've always gone to great lengths as well, to not place others into my personal sphere, and I demand the same respect from the anti-smoking nazis, and the PC control freaks........
While we are on the subject of anti-smoking nazis, I don't know if you have lived in this state long enough, but if you have, you'll recall that the same nazis placed referendoms on the ballot in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 election cycles to grotesquely increase the taxes on tobacco products in Missouri (ostensibly to discourage use, and cover "health care costs"), and they were summarily defeated every time it was attempted........they were not defeated because an overwhelming majority of the voters that came out were smokers, because that is certainly not the case.......they were defeated because the voters, most of whom were non-tobacco users, determined them to be fundamentally unfair.......the same is the case when our local community of 60,000 placed a broad-based public smoking ban on the local ballot......it was defeated by a 65-35 margin, therefore, the City Council arrived at a compromise ordinance that allows businesses to choose whether to become "smoke free" or not........and that has worked out very well here. The nazis aren't happy, but we've discovered that they are (albeit loud) an even smaller minority than the smokers......
Therefore to answer your "yes or no" question, I can state emphatically no......I don't favor any law that regulates an otherwise legal behavior, unless it is a direct public safety issue, a good example being speed limits on municipal streets.......however, for a reasonable citizen (such as myself) I rarely have to even pay attention to them, as I govern my driving by the environment that I'm in....using common sense.
At the root of it, an anti-smoking nazi is fundamentally still a nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!
I will never yield to politically correct fascism in any manner, whether it involves tobacco, fast food, phony accusations of racism, or whatever their next target of opportunity happens to be.
doc
-
At the root of it, an anti-smoking Nazi is fundamentally still a Nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!
Thank you for these words, Doc. I think I mentioned how they're going to proceed on to the next issue a few pages ago. From what I'm hearing, it will be "food that is bad" and they will base it off of "carcinogens in food....
And for the record, one of the nearly 30 bars in this small town has already started construction on their bar. They're making a wing of their bar totally for smokers. I for one think that it is a great idea. I'm already hearing bartenders bitch about losing some money, and the cops being on their backs over "loitering" smokers outside. The particular bar building an extension should be raking in the profits while the other bars suffer. I sincerely hope the bar adding on makes that money back, plus some. After all, they were forced to do it via Jim Doyle, and his ignorant law.
-
The original intent of the "law" is to regulate criminal behavior........not legal behavior.......further, if the intent of a law is to protect "public safety", then the test should be, does it equally effect ALL of the public, and not a small segment thereof.
If you wish to campaign to make tobacco use illegal, be my guest.....but so long as it is legal, businesses should be allowed to choose whether they wish to permit it, as a part of the concept of "private property", whether the public participates in those businesses or not.
And yes, I'm more than vehement about it, because I'm damn tired of a bunch of do-gooders trying to regulate what I do, for example, if I wish to drive a vehicle that gets 8 mpg, so long as I can afford to buy the damn gas, it's no one's business but my own, that includes the government........I've always gone to great lengths as well, to not place others into my personal sphere, and I demand the same respect from the anti-smoking nazis, and the PC control freaks........
While we are on the subject of anti-smoking nazis, I don't know if you have lived in this state long enough, but if you have, you'll recall that the same nazis placed referendoms on the ballot in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 election cycles to grotesquely increase the taxes on tobacco products in Missouri (ostensibly to discourage use, and cover "health care costs"), and they were summarily defeated every time it was attempted........they were not defeated because an overwhelming majority of the voters that came out were smokers, because that is certainly not the case.......they were defeated because the voters, most of whom were non-tobacco users, determined them to be fundamentally unfair.......the same is the case when our local community of 60,000 placed a broad-based public smoking ban on the local ballot......it was defeated by a 65-35 margin, therefore, the City Council arrived at a compromise ordinance that allows businesses to choose whether to become "smoke free" or not........and that has worked out very well here. The nazis aren't happy, but we've discovered that they are (albeit loud) an even smaller minority than the smokers......
Therefore to answer your "yes or no" question, I can state emphatically no......I don't favor any law that regulates an otherwise legal behavior, unless it is a direct public safety issue, a good example being speed limits on municipal streets.......however, for a reasonable citizen (such as myself) I rarely have to even pay attention to them, as I govern my driving by the environment that I'm in....using common sense.
At the root of it, an anti-smoking nazi is fundamentally still a nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!
I will never yield to politically correct fascism in any manner, whether it involves tobacco, fast food, phony accusations of racism, or whatever their next target of opportunity happens to be.
doc
Very well said doc.
A couple of things I will expound on; When the taxes do in fact get put in place and the people stop their abhorrent behavior the next thing to happen is the state starts looking for other things to tax to keep the revenue they generated which means it will shift to ... Oh I dunno ... maybe those who buy brass instruments.
And I'm with you on the 'Nazism'. Being a motorcyclist I am around a few ... what we call 'gear Nazis'. These are the people who insist all motorcyclists MUST wear all protective garb. DOT approved Helmet, ANSI approved glasses, leather riding jacket, leather full finger gloves, leather chaps/riding pants and heavy boots. It all sounds grand and would in fact help in an accident but what a lot of them fail to understand is; when you are riding and it is 105 degrees outside you could pass out from heat exhaustion/stroke due to the gear ... now that seems a problem to me so I don't ascribe to their notion of 'all gear, all the time'.
KC
-
And I'm with you on the 'Nazism'. Being a motorcyclist I am around a few ... what we call 'gear Nazis'. These are the people who insist all motorcyclists MUST wear all protective garb. DOT approved Helmet, ANSI approved glasses, leather riding jacket, leather full finger gloves, leather chaps/riding pants and heavy boots. It all sounds grand and would in fact help in an accident but what a lot of them fail to understand is; when you are riding and it is 105 degrees outside you could pass out from heat exhaustion/stroke due to the gear ... now that seems a problem to me so I don't ascribe to their notion of 'all gear, all the time'.
KC
Yeah.....back in my youth I rode as well.......I even laid a Honda 750 down at about 70 mph on I-35 near Minneapolis one rainy morning, and although the helmet (which cost me 10 bucks at K-Mart) probably saved my life, it was not a DOT approved helmet, and I've still got some "road rash" scars, but I lived through it.........and learned.
The same argument also applies to "seat belt laws"......and I'm old enough to have been driving before manufacturers even put them in cars. The argument for them spun out of their use in aviation, and as a pilot, I sorta chuckled about that one, because, the use of seat belts in aircraft has nothing to do with "saving lives" (your chances of living through a crash are slim and none).......if you auger one in, the seat belt ain't gonna save you........the purpose of an aircraft seat belt is to keep you in the seat in turbulence, not save your life.......
All of this automotive safety stuff started back in the 70's (the motorcycle stuff started about a decade later), and now, with electronic inertia-reel belt/harnesses, front impact air bags, side impact air bags, head restraints, side impact body reinforcements, crumple zones, roll-over reinforcement for the passenger compartment, electronic stability control, and on and on........this stuff now adds about $7,000 to the cost of a family-sized vehicle, For all of that government-mandated cost is it really worth it? I certainly don't know......based on raw statistics it seems that highway deaths per passenger mile driven has not been reduced by very much, certainly not enough to justify the staggering cost of attempting to engineer an automobile that is "idiot proof".
And as you stated, the "safety nazis" are essentially the same as the anti-smoking ones........
Interestingly, I'm sitting here in my den watching a couple of neighborhood kids riding their bicycles in the street.........they are wearing helmets, gloves, knee-pads, goggles, and some sort of arm pads (it's also 95 degrees out there)........gone are the days when I would hop on my 26-inch Schwinn in a pair of shorts, a t-shirt, and a baseball cap, and ride all day with my friends.......alas, times don't always change for the better......
But I digress......
doc
-
The original intent of the "law" is to regulate criminal behavior........not legal behavior.......further, if the intent of a law is to protect "public safety", then the test should be, does it equally effect ALL of the public, and not a small segment thereof.
If you wish to campaign to make tobacco use illegal, be my guest.....but so long as it is legal, businesses should be allowed to choose whether they wish to permit it, as a part of the concept of "private property", whether the public participates in those businesses or not.
And yes, I'm more than vehement about it, because I'm damn tired of a bunch of do-gooders trying to regulate what I do, for example, if I wish to drive a vehicle that gets 8 mpg, so long as I can afford to buy the damn gas, it's no one's business but my own, that includes the government........I've always gone to great lengths as well, to not place others into my personal sphere, and I demand the same respect from the anti-smoking nazis, and the PC control freaks........
While we are on the subject of anti-smoking nazis, I don't know if you have lived in this state long enough, but if you have, you'll recall that the same nazis placed referendoms on the ballot in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 election cycles to grotesquely increase the taxes on tobacco products in Missouri (ostensibly to discourage use, and cover "health care costs"), and they were summarily defeated every time it was attempted........they were not defeated because an overwhelming majority of the voters that came out were smokers, because that is certainly not the case.......they were defeated because the voters, most of whom were non-tobacco users, determined them to be fundamentally unfair.......the same is the case when our local community of 60,000 placed a broad-based public smoking ban on the local ballot......it was defeated by a 65-35 margin, therefore, the City Council arrived at a compromise ordinance that allows businesses to choose whether to become "smoke free" or not........and that has worked out very well here. The nazis aren't happy, but we've discovered that they are (albeit loud) an even smaller minority than the smokers......
Therefore to answer your "yes or no" question, I can state emphatically no......I don't favor any law that regulates an otherwise legal behavior, unless it is a direct public safety issue, a good example being speed limits on municipal streets.......however, for a reasonable citizen (such as myself) I rarely have to even pay attention to them, as I govern my driving by the environment that I'm in....using common sense.
At the root of it, an anti-smoking nazi is fundamentally still a nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!
I will never yield to politically correct fascism in any manner, whether it involves tobacco, fast food, phony accusations of racism, or whatever their next target of opportunity happens to be.
doc
Well said. Nanny-statism and other 'good intentions' are the seed from which authoritarianism spreads. If the dems manage to maintain control of congress, or the republicans do not repeal Obamacare, the feds will start trying to regulate what people eat and drink, because healthcare will be rationed.
-
Interestingly, I'm sitting here in my den watching a couple of neighborhood kids riding their bicycles in the street.........they are wearing helmets, gloves, knee-pads, goggles, and some sort of arm pads (it's also 95 degrees out there)........gone are the days when I would hop on my 26-inch Schwinn in a pair of shorts, a t-shirt, and a baseball cap, and ride all day with my friends.......alas, times don't always change for the better......
But I digress......
doc
Gad. I can't tell you how many people have gotten on to me about not making my kids wear helmets and such while riding their bikes. Me, the wife and the kids LOVE to ride our bikes (as my daughter would say ... ching, ching not vroom, vroom - bikes) We don't wear anything but our shorts, t-shirts and shoes. We do take water to stay hydrated .... that should count for something right?! LOL
How did we all live to this point?
KC
-
Very well said doc.
A couple of things I will expound on; When the taxes do in fact get put in place and the people stop their abhorrent behavior the next thing to happen is the state starts looking for other things to tax to keep the revenue they generated which means it will shift to ... Oh I dunno ... maybe those who buy brass instruments.
And I'm with you on the 'Nazism'. Being a motorcyclist I am around a few ... what we call 'gear Nazis'. These are the people who insist all motorcyclists MUST wear all protective garb. DOT approved Helmet, ANSI approved glasses, leather riding jacket, leather full finger gloves, leather chaps/riding pants and heavy boots. It all sounds grand and would in fact help in an accident but what a lot of them fail to understand is; when you are riding and it is 105 degrees outside you could pass out from heat exhaustion/stroke due to the gear ... now that seems a problem to me so I don't ascribe to their notion of 'all gear, all the time'.
KC
KC, I could agree with you on the "Gear Nazis". HOWEVER........ what pisses me off to NO extent is the fact that motorcyclists, in some states, are not required to wear a helmet and yet, those of us in cages are required to wear seat belts. Another hypocritical move by the "Fascists". I think I was 6 years old before seat belts became mandatory in cars and I was long an adult before they became mandatory to wear. IF a state has a seat belt law, then they should have a helmet law. If a state has NO helmet law, then they SHOULDN'T have a seat belt law. (Texas and Minnesota are a couple of those hypocritical states)
Are seat belts and helmets a good thing to wear?? No doubt. I learned a tough, hard lesson while riding back from Ensenada one night. I had take the face shield off of my helmet, as it was a nice day. It started to rain and me and a buddy had to return to San Diego before curfew. It was a suck ass ride with only sunglasses to protect my eyes (at night) Where the rain hit, it felt like a needle with every drop that hit my unprotected face. Helmets DO save lives and the Navy required that I wear one. (otherwise, any medical bills incurred would be MY responsibility)
-
KC, I could agree with you on the "Gear Nazis". HOWEVER........ what pisses me off to NO extent is the fact that motorcyclists, in some states, are not required to wear a helmet and yet, those of us in cages are required to wear seat belts. Another hypocritical move by the "Fascists". I think I was 6 years old before seat belts became mandatory in cars and I was long an adult before they became mandatory to wear. IF a state has a seat belt law, then they should have a helmet law. If a state has NO helmet law, then they SHOULDN'T have a seat belt law. (Texas and Minnesota are a couple of those hypocritical states)
Are seat belts and helmets a good thing to wear?? No doubt. I learned a tough, hard lesson while riding back from Ensenada one night. I had take the face shield off of my helmet, as it was a nice day. It started to rain and me and a buddy had to return to San Diego before curfew. It was a suck ass ride with only sunglasses to protect my eyes (at night) Where the rain hit, it felt like a needle with every drop that hit my unprotected face. Helmets DO save lives and the Navy required that I wear one. (otherwise, any medical bills incurred would be MY responsibility)
Thor, I agree with you only to the extent that it is hypocritical. I think seat belts and helmets do save lives in most, not all, cases. I do NOT think that if a state has a seat belt law then they MUST have a helmet law. That is backward thinking. I think the seat belt laws should be repealed.
I'm very libertarian. Note the small 'L'. when it comes to laws. I don't think the legislature should be able to pass a law without repealing 5 old ones. We are legislating ourselves to death! As doc said above about how much it costs to build vehicles ... how much cheaper would it be to manufacture many, many things without all the regulations.
I generally don't wear a helmet. I don't like them for various reasons but I do understand they have a purpose but I know the risk I'm taking and I'm the only one who can make that decision. I have ridden in the rain, the wind, hail and bright sunshine all with nothing more than my baseball cap and sunglasses. I have been down twice and both times I had a helmet on ... I broke my neck once. Did the helmet cause the break? I don't know but it is one of the downfalls of helmets. It did save me from a larger cut on my face than I had though.
KC
-
I think you can thank the insurance industry for the mandatory seatbelt laws.
-
For the record, the state and local municipalities also regulate when a bar or restaurant can be open, what type of food they can serve, how much alcohol they can serve per patron, parking of vehicles on their property..... the list is rather extensive.
It's the ban on smoking though that is the violation of personal freedoms...... first they come for happy hour, then they come for number of spaces I have to have in my parking lot, then they come for the fire exits and sprinkler systems, and can you believe they check the temp of the food I serve?
Whatever. :whatever:
Eggzactly
-
At the root of it, an anti-smoking nazi is fundamentally still a nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!
Exactly. In fact it is already going on to a certain extent. Banning restaurants from using trans-fats, banning the use of salt during the food preparation. Banning sweets and chips (or anything else that the nanny staters decide to label as "junk" food) at school even if the child brings his own lunch etc. The list is potentially endless.
-
I think you can thank the insurance industry for the mandatory seatbelt laws.
Nail meet Head.
That is the WHOLE problem. Insurance companies and attorneys are running our world now. Ever ask anyone if you can hunt on their land, swim in their pond, ride a dirt back in their field?
KC
-
Nail meet Head.
That is the WHOLE problem. Insurance companies and attorneys are running our world now. Ever ask anyone if you can hunt on their land, swim in their pond, ride a dirt back in their field?
KC
Not anymore. We used to do it all the time when I was a kid though. But then again our parents wouldn't have sued the land owner if we slipped and broke an arm while playing in his pond either.
-
The original intent of the "law" is to regulate criminal behavior........not legal behavior.......further, if the intent of a law is to protect "public safety", then the test should be, does it equally effect ALL of the public, and not a small segment thereof.
I'd say the effort is to make an otherwise legal practice illegal under certain conditions. That's no different than any other government regulation that attempts to regulate behavior. Banks can do business and make money, but certain banking practices are not legal.
You're saying that you have a problem with regulating any legal behavior, save those that directly impact public safety? Are there any other exceptions to that general rule?
I think you see where I'm going with this. We want to pick and choose the regulation that suits our own set of "what's right and proper." You even put names on those who would restrict cigarette smoking in public areas - "anti-smoking nazis" -as a way to show your disdain and contempt for such people.
Fair enough - I understand your point, and while I disagree with it, I'll do so without using terms like "anarchist" and other terms along those lines.
Regarding jacking up the cigarette tax, I think that's a subject that we can absolutely agree on. I think it's folly all the way around to tax a behavior - and smoking and drinking are behaviors, more than anything else. If a person wants to smoke, the price be damned. He or she will do just that. Same with drinking.
Mrs E and I moved to Missouri in 2007, so I haven't seen any of those referenda you're talking about. I'd vote it down too and will do so if I see it surface.
By the same token, I have a problem with taking state lottery money and allocating some of it towards "education" and have those who would profit by state-sanctioned gambling tout the "education" angle as justification for opening up yet another casino. It's patently dishonest and sends the wrong message -- it's perfectly fine to gamble, even to excess, as long as some of the proceeds go to some kind of worthy cause.
Nope, I have no interest in campaigning to make tobacco use illegal. Not my job. And I've already publicly said that I have on many occasions "voted with my feet" when a business owner allows smoking inside an entire restaurant. I just can't hack that, no pun intended. I've walked out of more than one place that way. My not being there doesn't impact the business owner, that's for sure, but if other people react the same way I do, the point may get across to that business owner that ignoring the non-smoking clientele will ultimately mean fewer dollars for the business.
Here's the crux of the matter:
Therefore to answer your "yes or no" question, I can state emphatically no......I don't favor any law that regulates an otherwise legal behavior, unless it is a direct public safety issue, a good example being speed limits on municipal streets.......however, for a reasonable citizen (such as myself) I rarely have to even pay attention to them, as I govern my driving by the environment that I'm in....using common sense.
The world is full of people who think of themselves as being "reasonable citizens" and who use "common sense" when their behavior clearly illustrates something other than that. I hate to say it, but many laws are put on the books to address and regulate what "common sense" should be. "Common sense" simply isn't that common.
The glut of laws and regulations are enacted to deal with many of these specific issues -- often to absurdity. That's witnessed by some archaic law, for example, that says it's illegal to have a antenna exposed outside of your house yet you can have a 25′ satellite dish, in Columbia MO. I'd wager that the putz who put that law on the books was just as passionate about exposed antennae in Columbia as some are about allowing smoking just anywhere, under any condition. BTW, smoking is outlawed in public places in Columbia. The moonbats love it. :rotf:
No doubt you and others think of anti-smoking laws as being ridiculous and absurd, just like the stupid antenna law in Columbia. But a law is a law is a law....
At the root of it, an anti-smoking nazi is fundamentally still a nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!
Very revealing statement there, doc -- beneath you, I'd say. You normally find a much kinder way to tell people to pound sand! :lmao:
-
Thor, I agree with you only to the extent that it is hypocritical. I think seat belts and helmets do save lives in most, not all, cases. I do NOT think that if a state has a seat belt law then they MUST have a helmet law. That is backward thinking. I think the seat belt laws should be repealed.
Well, the ideal thing, IMO, would be to repeal the state seat belt laws for those states that don't require motorcyclists to wear helmets.
rich: I'm fully aware from where the seat belt laws originated. IMO, it sucks that a corporation can force an entire country to make laws only to benefit them.
What was it that Franklin said, those that would give up essential liberties for a little safety deserve neither?? That's how I see it.
-
rich: I'm fully aware from where the seat belt laws originated. IMO, it sucks that a corporation can force an entire country to make laws only to benefit them.
Being a former casualty adjuster, I can assure you that wearing a helmet benefits the operator and passenger of a motorcycle far more than it does an insurance carrier.
Operating a motor vehicle on a public way is not a right by the way, it is a privilege.
-
Actually my thoughts on motorcycles and helmets are if you want insurance coverage, then you have to wear a helmet. No helmet? claim denied.
Ditto for seat belts.
-
Actually my thoughts on motorcycles and helmets are if you want insurance coverage, then you have to wear a helmet. No helmet? claim denied.
Ditto for seat belts.
New ideas for people to consider.
DOT approved helmets for anyone riding a horse, donkey or mule.
Helmets for anyone riding in a Vachel with an absent top, convertables jeeps etc.
All pleasure boating passengers to wear life vests at all times. This to include row boats, charter boats, anything essentially if it float in water. Cruise to the islands for 6 days wearing one over the Dress Night at the Captains table.
No one visiting and camping out in any wooded area allowed even in National Parks can do so with out having a good supply of Bear Pepper Spray and a small air horn to alert others to a danger. All hunters and hikers must all so carry these things.
No handicapped person or senior allowed out after dark without an escort to aid them with any problem, be it a fall, slip, a mugging or keeping them out of the bars.
If anyone in the above list insist on being out after dark then something happens to them, they have to carry half the fault for putting themselves in that position.
A health form must be filled out before anyone is allowed to fly private or commercial as to ----no one allowed to fly that is more then 71/2 months pregnant, has had dental work or surgery within the last 4 weeks.
Remove the tax exempt status only on Christian Churches.
Up the penalty's on crimes committed against anyone from a different faith, race, or age difference.
Make verbal utterances a crime, use the N word, go to jail. OK to say Cracker and Honkey, Wop, Mick, Greaser, Chink, Kraut, Frog, Limey and Dumb Pollock is permissible. Have I left any one out.? Big time jail time to speak against Rag Heads or Mohammad.
:fuelfire: :fuelfire: :fuelfire:
-
No handicapped person or senior allowed out after dark without an escort to aid them with any problem, be it a fall, slip, a mugging or keeping them out of the bars.
Okay, vesta, I'll ask the question that everybody's dying to ask:
Did somebody let you out after dark last night? Were you mugged by any chance? Were you kept out of bars okay, or did somebody drop the ball?
Just sayin'....... :rotf: