Right to smoke?

[5stringJeff]

Again, the issue just wouldn't warrant that type of activism.

I agree, it won't, but that's the route smokers should take if they want to overturn the law.

 

[Annie]

I agree, it won't, but that's the route smokers should take if they want to overturn the law.

I think the repercussions will be down the road. Sort of like the can of worms opened by the Texas police entering the bedroom and pressing charges. Or the door to eminent domain...

 

[Gunny]

I agree, it won't, but that's the route smokers should take if they want to overturn the law.

You're talking after-the-fact action though. Prevention is far easier than change.

And I would argue that where private industry is concerned, the state IS overstepping its bounds and is NOT within its rights under the Constitution.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I voted "yes" with the stipulation that the state legislature (the people) can regulate where they smoke in the interest of public health. If people have to smoke and they just can't wait, they need to go outside where their pollution won't affect other people who would rather not have their air painfully contaminated.

*Angry smoker liability clause* For the record, I smoked a pack-a-day for almost seven years and quit successfully and easily so I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Gunny]

I voted "yes" with the stipulation that the state legislature (the people) can regulate where they smoke in the interest of public health. If people have to smoke and they just can't wait, they need to go outside where their pollution won't affect other people who would rather not have their air painfully contaminated.

*Angry smoker liability clause* For the record, I smoked a pack-a-day for almost seven years and quit successfully and easily so I think I know what I'm talking about.

Now apply Gem's analogy. In the interest of public health, most if not all fast food joints would have to shut down since everything they sell is a heart attack in a sack.

Any place in particular this line should be drawn?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Now apply Gem's analogy. In the interest of public health, most if not all fast food joints would have to shut down since everything they sell is a heart attack in a sack.

Any place in particular this line should be drawn?

Yeah. Read the post you quoted me on Gunny. I didn't say the smoking industry needed to be shut-down. I said smoking areas should be regulated so non-smokers don't have to breathe it.

As an aside, Gem's fast-food comment is nonsensical. It's what I call "ironic fanaticism" or the use of an ironic metaphor that would never actually occur in reality to prove a zealous point of view. No sane person would ever entertain the idea of shutting-down an industry because it sells fatty burgers. Furthermore, a person can choose whether or not to buy and consume a fatty burger. One cannot choose to breathe second-hand smoke. C'mone mayne.

 

[manu1959]

do you have a right to drive a car?.....that....

pollute the environment

causes cancer

causes global warming....or cooling depending on the day (coold as a witches tit today in california)

kills people and animals when opperated improperly

 

[Hagbard Celine]

do you have a right to drive a car?.....that....

pollute the environment

causes cancer

causes global warming....or cooling depending on the day (coold as a witches tit today in california)

kills people and animals when opperated improperly

Hey, since I have to travel a significant distance to work it follows that I have to drive a car. I don't see it as a right--rather an expensive necessity. And until the government outlaws it, stops suckling on the lobbyist/corporate/oil industry tit by writing and enforcing laws designed to bring about the mass-production of electric or non-gas, non-polluting autos or builds a monorail system that'll get me from the 'burbs to Atlanta everyday, I'll continue to drive my car. Hey, atleast I drive a sedan that gets an average of 31 miles per gallon. I'm doing my part--it's not my fault that car and oil companies beat-out public transportation initiatives. I was born into this waste--I didn't create it.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah. Read the post you quoted me on Gunny. I didn't say the smoking industry needed to be shut-down. I said smoking areas should be regulated so non-smokers don't have to breathe it.

As an aside, Gem's fast-food comment is nonsensical. It's what I call "ironic fanaticism" or the use of an ironic metaphor that would never actually occur in reality to prove a zealous point of view. No sane person would ever entertain the idea of shutting-down an industry because it sells fatty burgers. Furthermore, a person can choose whether or not to buy and consume a fatty burger. One cannot choose to breathe second-hand smoke. C'mone mayne.

I didn't misread your post, and responded to it.

As far as your dissection of Gem's analogy, I doubt the tobacco industry in past days figured the same would happen to a product that was the financial basis of this Nation during it's original formation. Probably used the same "reasonable person" argument you are attempting to use here.

This isn't about reasonable.

People have just as much right to not go to places that allow smoking as anyone else has a right to or not to consume fast food.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I didn't misread your post, and responded to it.

As far as your dissection of Gem's analogy, I doubt the tobacco industry in past days figured the same would happen to a product that was the financial basis of this Nation during it's original formation. Probably used the same "reasonable person" argument you are attempting to use here.

This isn't about reasonable.

People have just as much right to not go to places that allow smoking as anyone else has a right to or not to consume fast food.

So under your reasoning, the regulation of designated smoking areas should be left up to individual businesses and if people don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, they should not patronize businesses that allow smoking? Well Gunny. Without government regulations, non-smokers could not go to bars, restaurants, theaters, they couldn't fly, work, go to the post office, stand in line at Wal-Mart, fill-up their cars, etc. Should non-smokers just have to stay at home and peer out their windows if they want to get a glimpse of the world?

-OR-

(Hint. This is how reality is.) Should smokers *a very small minority* be relegated to a small area by the rest of society so that their unhealthy habit will not affect anyone who doesn't want to take part in it?

 

[Annie]

So under your reasoning, the regulation of designated smoking areas should be left up to individual businesses and if people don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, they should not patronize businesses that allow smoking? Well Gunny. Without government regulations, non-smokers could not go to bars, restaurants, theaters, they couldn't fly, work, go to the post office, stand in line at Wal-Mart, fill-up their cars, etc. Should non-smokers just have to stay at home and peer out their windows if they want to get a glimpse of the world?

-OR-

(Hint. This is how reality is.) Should smokers *a very small minority* be relegated to a small area by the rest of society so that their unhealthy habit will not affect anyone who doesn't want to take part in it?

Untrue. I just saw an advertisment for Westin Hotels, smoke free. Restaurants would do the same, if the owner thinks more of health or that he'll make more by doing so.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Untrue. I just saw an advertisment for Westin Hotels, smoke free. Restaurants would do the same, if the owner thinks more of health or that he'll make more by doing so.

What's untrue? Most hotels and motels have smoking and non-smoking rooms you can rent. What's your point? :huh:

 

[Annie]

What's untrue? Most hotels and motels have smoking and non-smoking rooms you can rent. What's your point? :huh:

...Without government regulations, non-smokers could not go to bars, restaurants, theaters, they couldn't fly, work, go to the post office, stand in line at Wal-Mart, fill-up their cars, etc....

Businesses will choose what they do, based on their own bottom line, could be cash, could be ideology.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Businesses will choose what they do, based on their own bottom line, could be cash, could be ideology.

Sure they will. But they won't if the government passes a constitutionally legitimate ban on a certain practice that is backed by the majority of the people. They they will amend their decisions or be punished regardless of their bottom lines.

Smoking is unhealthy so as a society, many of our cities have started to crack-down on an issue they see as affecting public health. No one is trying to take the cigarette out of your mouth and slap you on the wrist. In fact, by all means, continue to smoke. But we would appreciate it if you would go outside so that our omelette won't taste like a Virginia Slim.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Businesses will choose what they do, based on their own bottom line, could be cash, could be ideology.

Sure they will. But they won't if the government passes a constitutionally legitimate ban on a certain practice that is backed by the majority of the people. Then they will amend their decisions or be punished regardless of their bottom lines. That's how laws work.

Smoking is unhealthy so as a society, many of our cities have started to crack-down on an issue they see as affecting public health. No one is trying to take the cigarette out of your mouth and slap you on the wrist. In fact, by all means, continue to smoke. But we would appreciate it if you would go outside so that our omelette won't taste like a Virginia Slim.

 

[Annie]

Sure they will. But they won't if the government passes a constitutionally legitimate ban on a certain practice that is backed by the majority of the people. Then they will amend their decisions or be punished regardless of their bottom lines. That's how laws work.

Smoking is unhealthy so as a society, many of our cities have started to crack-down on an issue they see as affecting public health. No one is trying to take the cigarette out of your mouth and slap you on the wrist. In fact, by all means, continue to smoke. But we would appreciate it if you would go outside so that our omelette won't taste like a Virginia Slim.

So you bring it back to the beginning. I've already said the government will do what they want. Smokers will not stand up to it. It will cause problems down the road.

 

[Gunny]

So under your reasoning, the regulation of designated smoking areas should be left up to individual businesses and if people don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, they should not patronize businesses that allow smoking? Well Gunny. Without government regulations, non-smokers could not go to bars, restaurants, theaters, they couldn't fly, work, go to the post office, stand in line at Wal-Mart, fill-up their cars, etc. Should non-smokers just have to stay at home and peer out their windows if they want to get a glimpse of the world?

-OR-

(Hint. This is how reality is.) Should smokers *a very small minority* be relegated to a small area by the rest of society so that their unhealthy habit will not affect anyone who doesn't want to take part in it?

What I see is a double-standard on your part in regard to "reasonable."

By your argument, it IS reasonable to legislate smoking in the interest of the public's health, but it is NOT reasonable to legislate dumping poison directly into your body (fast food) in the interest of the public health.

I don't see smoker's as being a small minority. What I see is a propaganda and smear campaign conducted by the politically correct, the US gov't and the MSM that equals no other. Smoking is blamed for just about every known disease, and the numbers of smoker's reported by the gov't and/or MSM sure don't add up to what I see with my eyeballs.

My argument does not disallow non-smokers from participating in anything. If smoker's are such a small minority, business owners would opt on their own to cater to the majority, right? Problem solved.

Though it isn't because activists, a TRUE small minority want to legislate through the back door what they can't get by whining at the front.

Be all that is it may, my stance is that the government should not be telling business owners -- be they allowing smoking or serving fast food -- who they are allowed to cater to in their privately -owned busniess.

As I already stated, finances will dictate who business owners cater to. They're going to cater to the money; regardless, the side it is on.

Personally, I don't care where non-smokers choose to not go because smoking is allowed. I can't go to hip hop bars because they play that shit. I don't go to gay bars because .....they're full of fags.

There is always somethign somewhere people object to. The law catering to people tryng to tailor the entire world to suit their fancies is just bullshit.

 

[KarlMarx]

I voted "yes" with the stipulation that the state legislature (the people) can regulate where they smoke in the interest of public health. If people have to smoke and they just can't wait, they need to go outside where their pollution won't affect other people who would rather not have their air painfully contaminated.

*Angry smoker liability clause* For the record, I smoked a pack-a-day for almost seven years and quit successfully and easily so I think I know what I'm talking about.

I heard from a someone that the American Cancer Society is working with companies to make their grounds totally smoke free. That means, not only will smoking be prohibited in the buildings, but in the parking lots or anywhere on company grounds.

I can't swear that it's true, but the person who told me is very active with ACS activities, so I believe there's some truth to it.

Regardless of how you feel about the 2nd hand smoke issue, there can't be any justification for forbidding people from smoking outdoors except to antagonize and harrass smokers.

As for a "right" to smoke, remember the 10th amendment... voters in the states can and should be able to decide on issues like this.

 

[sitarro]

I smoke pipe tobacco and cigars, I have to get on a golf course, sit at my tobacconist establishment or stay home to enjoy my right to smoke.Very few bars allow cigars anymore, cigarette smokers give me as much crap as the nonsmokers. I enjoy tobacco in it's puriat form and I'm a pariah. I think I'll go smoke a Commacho right now....see ya.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I smoke pipe tobacco and cigars, I have to get on a golf course, sit at my tobacconist establishment or stay home to enjoy my right to smoke.Very few bars allow cigars anymore, cigarette smokers give me as much crap as the nonsmokers. I enjoy tobacco in it's puriat form and I'm a pariah. I think I'll go smoke a Commacho right now....see ya.

If you decide on the pipe instead, I wouldn't mind a whiff...