Can you ban smoking outdoors?

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Sure you could ban it. You can pass a law for any stupid little thing you have a bug up your ass for if you can get enough people to go along with you.

Enforcing it would be another matter. I doubt you could effectively enforce a stupid law like this.

w3rd. the cops would complain on how many ticket theyd be writing i think too.

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BTW-I'm all for banning smoking in buildings where the public can go and for all private businesses too.

in a private business that has no public entrance and all employees smoke, whats the point? i do service calls in a couple companies that arent open to the public and they smoke like chimneys in their offices. could they get busted? yes. is anyone going to report them? nope. is it hurting any nonsmokers? not a bit.

 

[sao123]

smokers should have to buy air pollution credits from nonsmokers like me...


alright...pay up
:evil:

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: pcnerd37
I would gladly support such a law that banned smoking outdoors or smoking entirely. As far as having a drop in tax revenue because of it, I would say that tax should be switched over to alcoholic beverages. Its time to fix what is wrong with this country and we should start with our health.

Explain how you can make ban constitutional?

the pressident has already been set...

There are dry counties all across america... they are constitutional...
why cant there be smoke free counties?

 

[pcnerd37]

Im too lazy to mess with all kinds of quotes, so here it goes...

Explain to me how hurting the health of others around you and the environment in your slow suicide is constitutional.

As far as the alcoholic beverages being good for your health, yes some studies say its good for your heart, but its still bad for you liver. A large percentage of alcoholic beverage consumers do not always consume in moderation, at which point you are endangering others around them. Clearly the cops cant catch every idiot that drinks and drives, but by charging higher amounts for alcohol through taxes, it will be less financially feasible to drink large amounts and put others in jeopardy. If you consider all of the people that have been killed in alcohol related incidents, it far outweighs the few positive effects on the heart from drinking in moderation.

The problem with the fast food, candy and stuff argument, that is completely bogus and you know it. With some willpower, you can control the amount of food that you eat and what kind of food that you eat. If you have two big macs instead of one, that has no effect on me. If you are smoking, you have no control of where the smoke goes. Without being able to control it, it will have an effect on others. Endangering yourself is one thing, but endangering other people because of your lack of will power is a completely different issue.

If you could harm yourself without having an effect on others, that is one thing, but until you can smoke without harming others, your argument is baseless.

Please argue your points logically, not fanatically.

 

[broon]

Smoking outside doesn't harm others. Smoking pollution is a grain of sand on the beach of auto exhaust. And the fast food argument is consistent with yours about taxing it because it's not good for you.

 

[pcnerd37]

Originally posted by: broon
Smoking outside doesn't harm others. Smoking pollution is a grain of sand on the beach of auto exhaust. And the fast food argument is consistent with yours about taxing it because it's not good for you.

As somebody who's mother has lung problems, let me assure you that it does harm others even when outdoors, and she has the medical records to prove it.

As far as your comparison to auto exhaust goes, again this is a faulty argument. While a car may produce more pollution than a cigarette, how often do you drive your car to satisfy your addiction to gasoline a dozen times a day? How often do yo you drive as a way to slowly kill yourself? Clearly your argument is full of holes.

The fast food argument is not consistent and if read carefully you would see that. It is about making it less financially feasible to endanger the lives of others than just yourself. If you look at the point I am making, the essence of it is not what is bad for you, but what consequences it has on others. If you lived on a deserted island and were constantly drunk, I would not care because you wouldn't be able to harm others, but as long as you are part of society, that risk is there.

If you want to kill yourself slowly or quickly, I dont care. Where I do care is when your actions cause harmful consequences to others.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: pcnerd37

The problem with the fast food, candy and stuff argument, that is completely bogus and you know it. With some willpower, you can control the amount of food that you eat and what kind of food that you eat. If you have two big macs instead of one, that has no effect on me. If you are smoking, you have no control of where the smoke goes. Without being able to control it, it will have an effect on others. Endangering yourself is one thing, but endangering other people because of your lack of will power is a completely different issue.

If you could harm yourself without having an effect on others, that is one thing, but until you can smoke without harming others, your argument is baseless.

Please argue your points logically, not fanatically.

so youre saying that smoke somehow enters your lungs unwillingly on your part by being in the same 30 acre park? how about sitting next to someone at a bus stop? nope. get off my lap while im smoking and you wont have any issue at all with 2nd hand smoke inhalation. it dissipates so quickly and thoroughly in open air it isnt even as harmful as car exhaust. just like the pot smoke contact high myth. you can sit next to someone for days while they smoke and never get a contact high, unless youre in a stagnant air room with no ventilation and they are smoking nonstop for over 8 hours. your argument isnt logical either, if you can trust people to have self discipline for eating, they can have self discipline on smoking/ drinking.

 

[OutHouse]

link? i want to know know what town in CO is doing this.

also, when tax revenue drops from all the smoking bans do you people think the government will do away with that tax? nooooooo they will add it to something else.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: teddyv
It is purely a health issue. Since smoking is clearly bad, it should be banned in all forms, in all places. That said, obesity kills far more people in this country than smoking. In light of this, I believe it only makes sense to also ban fattening and unhealthy foods. All fast-food should be eliminated as unhealthy, all fried foods, and all citizens should report to diet stations where they will be assessed for the proper intake of nutrients - those deemed overweight will face criminal penalties for not losing weight or failing to comply with government-ordered exercise plans. Uberfatties will be imprisoned until healthy enough to roam free again.

It has been and always will be the job of the Government to identify what is in your best interest, and to force you to comply with its findings.

Wow. I want some of what your smoking! "report to diet stations?"..."criminal penalties?" I hope your joking right???

 

[se7en]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist
so youre saying that smoke somehow enters your lungs unwillingly on your part by being in the same 30 acre park? how about sitting next to someone at a bus stop? nope. get off my lap while im smoking and you wont have any issue at all with 2nd hand smoke inhalation. it dissipates so quickly and thoroughly in open air it isnt even as harmful as car exhaust. just like the pot smoke contact high myth. you can sit next to someone for days while they smoke and never get a contact high, unless youre in a stagnant air room with no ventilation and they are smoking nonstop for over 8 hours. your argument isnt logical either, if you can trust people to have self discipline for eating, they can have self discipline on smoking/ drinking.

Lots of assumptions there for someone who must not go outside like. . .ever?

30 acre park your right I probably won't get your smoke in my lungs. Now if you walk down the street smoking and I pass by does it enter my lungs? Depends on tons of variables like air current, traveling speed, height of each person yadda yadda. Point being I have and will continue to inhale someone else's smoke just from being in a public places like the street, eating establishments and other things of the like.

The car example is a waste of breath and only for agrumentative purposes. You need a car to get from point A to point B but a cigarette provides no such "good" benefit only negative. Waving the car and fast food flag around looks great but it has no relevance since they both have "positives" and are better saved for another thread.

A ban on cigarettes altogether would be great but still our society isn't ready for such an advanced step forward at this time. People will sue for freedom to kill themselves or whatever as every monkey lawyer will jump on that bandwagon. Now banning them in ALL places other than strictly private property would be the first logical step. You can do what you like in your home but in any place where you could harm someone else it should be restricted.

Hell Im even down for small plastic cubes in cities that smokers can go to which are totally enclosed. Have them recirculate the same air 24/7 and it would be just like on an airplane with 50 other future organ donors.

 

[torpid]

Outdoor smoking bans would not and should not affect smoking in the privacy of your own property. Thus they would not be violating any sort of constitutional right. We already ban drinking from open containers in public, although people get around that with the brown bag trick.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Regs
What I can't believe is that they actually are trying to make a law for people who smoke while their babies are in the car.

To me, if I had kids, I would not smoke. I would at least pull over and smoke out side. It would make a long trip but at least people wouldn't have to make a law for it.

(yes I still smoke )

Because you wouldn't smoke with kids in the car, there shouldn't be a law? Should there be no laws against abusing your kids, because you wouldn't do it? I wouldn't come to your house and kill you, so should there be no laws against that?

 

[Journer]

these fucking towns full of soccer moms and crazies need to stop violating store owners rights. it should be 100% illegal to ban smoking on private property. Someone owns that fucking store, not the public. If the majority of people want to ban it in all public areas, whatever, thats their choice, but telling a restaurant/bar owner his/her customers cant smoke in THEIR establishment is communism.

 

[Journer]

Originally posted by: torpid
Outdoor smoking bans would not and should not affect smoking in the privacy of your own property. Thus they would not be violating any sort of constitutional right. We already ban drinking from open containers in public, although people get around that with the brown bag trick.

people will start putting brown bags around cigs :laugh: :laugh:

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: Journer
these fucking towns full of soccer moms and crazies need to stop violating store owners rights. it should be 100% illegal to ban smoking on private property. Someone owns that fucking store, not the public. If the majority of people want to ban it in all public areas, whatever, thats their choice, but telling a restaurant/bar owner his/her customers cant smoke in THEIR establishment is communism.

Fo shizzle. :thumbsup:

 

[pcnerd37]

Originally posted by: Journer
these fucking towns full of soccer moms and crazies need to stop violating store owners rights. it should be 100% illegal to ban smoking on private property. Someone owns that fucking store, not the public. If the majority of people want to ban it in all public areas, whatever, thats their choice, but telling a restaurant/bar owner his/her customers cant smoke in THEIR establishment is communism.

It appears that somebody needs to remind you that just because you have the deed to a property in your name, it does not mean your are your own country that gets to do whatever you want. You are still subject to the government. If you don't like this fact, go buy your own island where nobody will bother you and you cant bother anybody.

It is NOT communism. The governments purpose is to protect the well-being of its citizens, not to keep you from being stupid. When your stupidity interferes with the well-being of others, then its the governments job to step in and say you cannot do that. This has little to do with the concept of ownership as it does promoting the well-being of the public.

 

[FoBoT]

there are a lot of commies in the USA these days

http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/bet...itestorm/nocommies.jpg

 

[waggy]

ok so they ban cigs.

whats next fatty foods? oh wait already trying that.

alchohol? oops that was a big failure.

risky activities?

they are always going to be something that they are going to tax/ban because its unhealthy. but nobody cares until its osmething they do.

 

[torpid]

The argument often made when a city bans smoking indoors is that an employer has no right to force its employees to inhale second hand smoke. That is the argument that was used here and in some cities in california. So that is where it differs from fatty foods, alcohol, etc.

 

[teddyv]

restricting personal freedom

I don't think there is an Constitutional Right to smoke outside. I do know there is no general Constitutional Right to unrestricted personal freedom.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: se7en

Originally posted by: hanoverphist
so youre saying that smoke somehow enters your lungs unwillingly on your part by being in the same 30 acre park? how about sitting next to someone at a bus stop? nope. get off my lap while im smoking and you wont have any issue at all with 2nd hand smoke inhalation. it dissipates so quickly and thoroughly in open air it isnt even as harmful as car exhaust. just like the pot smoke contact high myth. you can sit next to someone for days while they smoke and never get a contact high, unless youre in a stagnant air room with no ventilation and they are smoking nonstop for over 8 hours. your argument isnt logical either, if you can trust people to have self discipline for eating, they can have self discipline on smoking/ drinking.

Lots of assumptions there for someone who must not go outside like. . .ever?

30 acre park your right I probably won't get your smoke in my lungs. Now if you walk down the street smoking and I pass by does it enter my lungs? Depends on tons of variables like air current, traveling speed, height of each person yadda yadda. Point being I have and will continue to inhale someone else's smoke just from being in a public places like the street, eating establishments and other things of the like.

The car example is a waste of breath and only for agrumentative purposes. You need a car to get from point A to point B but a cigarette provides no such "good" benefit only negative. Waving the car and fast food flag around looks great but it has no relevance since they both have "positives" and are better saved for another thread.

A ban on cigarettes altogether would be great but still our society isn't ready for such an advanced step forward at this time. People will sue for freedom to kill themselves or whatever as every monkey lawyer will jump on that bandwagon. Now banning them in ALL places other than strictly private property would be the first logical step. You can do what you like in your home but in any place where you could harm someone else it should be restricted.

Hell Im even down for small plastic cubes in cities that smokers can go to which are totally enclosed. Have them recirculate the same air 24/7 and it would be just like on an airplane with 50 other future organ donors.

lol the assumption train i jumped on was on purpose. i was pointing out the fallacy in the car/ fast food/ smoking thing as well, just in a different manner. i am a smoker, and i spend a lot of time outside. not always smoking tho. you must define "harm" and the limits like you state before you can say what smoke in a public (open air venue) is before saying a smoker is harming you. if youre walking down a public street and someone in front of you is smoking, unless youre right on their ass walking on their heels and purposely breathing in the exhaled smoke i doubt enough is getting into your lungs to actually hurt you. if that smoker is intentionally blowing smoke into the faces of people around him, punch him in the kidney and tell him to grow up... hes just being an ass. of that approx. 50% smoke that you exhale, whats the % of harmful toxins? how much is going to be dissipated by the air around you before it can get to your lungs? how much can you really say are going to be in your lungs?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: pcnerd37

Originally posted by: Journer
these fucking towns full of soccer moms and crazies need to stop violating store owners rights. it should be 100% illegal to ban smoking on private property. Someone owns that fucking store, not the public. If the majority of people want to ban it in all public areas, whatever, thats their choice, but telling a restaurant/bar owner his/her customers cant smoke in THEIR establishment is communism.

It appears that somebody needs to remind you that just because you have the deed to a property in your name, it does not mean your are your own country that gets to do whatever you want. You are still subject to the government. If you don't like this fact, go buy your own island where nobody will bother you and you cant bother anybody.

It is NOT communism. The governments purpose is to protect the well-being of its citizens, not to keep you from being stupid. When your stupidity interferes with the well-being of others, then its the governments job to step in and say you cannot do that. This has little to do with the concept of ownership as it does promoting the well-being of the public.

Ah, a big government authoritarian cretin. Goodie! Go worship at your statues of Hitler and Stalin, they miss you when you go type your garbage into the internets.

 

[Journer]

Originally posted by: pcnerd37

Originally posted by: Journer
these fucking towns full of soccer moms and crazies need to stop violating store owners rights. it should be 100% illegal to ban smoking on private property. Someone owns that fucking store, not the public. If the majority of people want to ban it in all public areas, whatever, thats their choice, but telling a restaurant/bar owner his/her customers cant smoke in THEIR establishment is communism.

It appears that somebody needs to remind you that just because you have the deed to a property in your name, it does not mean your are your own country that gets to do whatever you want. You are still subject to the government. If you don't like this fact, go buy your own island where nobody will bother you and you cant bother anybody.

It is NOT communism. The governments purpose is to protect the well-being of its citizens, not to keep you from being stupid. When your stupidity interferes with the well-being of others, then its the governments job to step in and say you cannot do that. This has little to do with the concept of ownership as it does promoting the well-being of the public.

it seems like you need to think about what you JUST wrote. I agree 100% with what you said (in the first paragraph), which was essentially, you can do whatever you want, AS LONG AS, you don't infringe upon the rights of another. I.E. you cannot pollute air/water around your house because it will effect your neighbors.

the governments purpose is to maintain society by means that are constitutional. basically, the government needs to take care of the things that people do when they infringe on other's rights.

the person that owns the property has the RIGHT to choose what is done on the property, as long as what is being done is constitutional. just because you have the ability to come and go into a business (assuming they haven't banned you, which is also legal) you are not allowed to choose what the business does unless you own it. if you dont like that the person is doing there, then leave. no one is forcing you to be there. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO EAT AND DRINK IN SOMEONE'S PRIVATE BUSINESS OR HOME. so if you dont like smoke and they dont mind it, just go somewhere else or express your concerns to the owner.

now, in public, this is completely different. you do have the right to be in public areas unless you are being unlawful. therefore, such issues are best controlled by local laws.

 

[Journer]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: pcnerd37

Originally posted by: Journer
these fucking towns full of soccer moms and crazies need to stop violating store owners rights. it should be 100% illegal to ban smoking on private property. Someone owns that fucking store, not the public. If the majority of people want to ban it in all public areas, whatever, thats their choice, but telling a restaurant/bar owner his/her customers cant smoke in THEIR establishment is communism.

It appears that somebody needs to remind you that just because you have the deed to a property in your name, it does not mean your are your own country that gets to do whatever you want. You are still subject to the government. If you don't like this fact, go buy your own island where nobody will bother you and you cant bother anybody.

It is NOT communism. The governments purpose is to protect the well-being of its citizens, not to keep you from being stupid. When your stupidity interferes with the well-being of others, then its the governments job to step in and say you cannot do that. This has little to do with the concept of ownership as it does promoting the well-being of the public.

Ah, a big government authoritarian cretin. Goodie! Go worship at your statues of Hitler and Stalin, they miss you when you go type your garbage into the internets.

:thumbsup: he should go back to WWII Germany/Russia or China

also, when will people learn that BANNING shit pretty much never works. Many drugs are banned, how many people do you know have done/do drugs? These people need to pick up fucking book and read up on prohibition...

 

[waggy]

heh banning it outdoors around here would be a waste. considering most people around here work outside (farming area). Not to mention all the yard burning, crap the put on the fields (man that crap stinks!) etc.

a little cigarate is nto going to bother anyone heh.