[POLL] - Smoking Ban

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: BUTCH1
I know it is, his attitude just pisses me off...

AWESOME!! I love confrontation!!

Sorry, but the truth is that the general public perceives smokers as filthy pigs. If you smoke, then I suggest you quit. The problem is that you smokers can't do it - you're worthless .. weak .. the slime of society.

You can do it, Butch (what kind of name is that?) ... give it up man ... let go of the money making pimp!!

Geez, I thought the "slime" of society were the crooks, rapists, and thugs. Just smoking
gets me in?? lemme guess your a " golden" boy without vice or weakness right??

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
It's amazing how much this country has drifted from the values instilled by our founding fathers. They would most likely be physically ill if they saw what the government was allowed to do to ones own freedoms these days.

Is spreading cancer a "value" worth fighting for?There has never been a study to show that second hand smoke causes cancer that was a true unbiased study

My health is worth fighting for, so yes there should be a total ban on smoking at all public places.My smoking does not effect your health. And you have no right for me as a bussiness owner to make your life pleasent. It is the right of the OWNER to decide how best to serve the customers

Majority rules and non smoker are the minority, i gues smokers are screwed. The country was founded on the basis of induviual freedom not majority rules

What are you smoking anyway?

I am a former smoker who fought and beat mouth cancer.

We are a majority, we don't want smokers around us. End of story.
Go exercise your right to kill yourself at home.

No We are a majority that protects the individual.

No one is FORCING you to go into an estabishment that allow smoking and furthermore it is not your right for me to make you comfortable.

To say that we are simply the majority rules would be stupid because the mojority of people did not want civil rights. Or the abolishment of slavery. So sorry Majority rules is not the rules in this country. We have a constitution that is supposed to protect personal FREEDOM and FREEDOM means that I can upset you.

You need to take a middle school civics class and come back.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
It's amazing how much this country has drifted from the values instilled by our founding fathers. They would most likely be physically ill if they saw what the government was allowed to do to ones own freedoms these days.

Is spreading cancer a "value" worth fighting for?There has never been a study to show that second hand smoke causes cancer that was a true unbiased study

My health is worth fighting for, so yes there should be a total ban on smoking at all public places.My smoking does not effect your health. And you have no right for me as a bussiness owner to make your life pleasent. It is the right of the OWNER to decide how best to serve the customers

Majority rules and non smoker are the minority, i gues smokers are screwed. The country was founded on the basis of induviual freedom not majority rules

What are you smoking anyway?

I am a former smoker who fought and beat mouth cancer.

We are a majority, we don't want smokers around us. End of story.
Go exercise your right to kill yourself at home.

No We are a majority that protects the individual.

No one is FORCING you to go into an estabishment that allow smoking and furthermore it is not your right for me to make you comfortable.

To say that we are simply the majority rules would be stupid because the mojority of people did not want civil rights. Or the abolishment of slavery. So sorry Majority rules is not the rules in this country. We have a constitution that is supposed to protect personal FREEDOM and FREEDOM means that I can upset you.

You need to take a middle school civics class and come back.

I guess he's OK with the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Muse]

I used to smoke. Quiting was the easiest thing I've ever done.

Sometimes I don't mind, but often I totally do. I really think tobacco is an international scurge. It's worse outside the USA, much worse. Honestly I'd vote for extermination of the tobacco plant.

 

[tylerdustin2008]

If they were to ban smoking. Well they would lose all of my respect. Whats it matter if we smoke, company's make smokes, and most or all of us have tried them. Some may or may not have liked it. It is based on liking it. If they were to ban smoking in public places soooo many would do it just to fill up jails, it would get repelled just like prohibition.

 

[Sust]

Science is always finding other ways to get one step closer.

I am in no way responsible for what you guys do with this information

 

[Flyback]

Smoking in gov owned buildings should be completely banned. As should be introducing any other stinky things that makes peoples clothes smell (strong cologne and/or perfume) and breathing difficult. Smoking outside should be a minimum of say 20-30 feet away from the doors.

Private businesses should have the choice 100%.

In the general public (outside, streets, sidewalks) it should be legal to smoke. I'm much more against car exhaust fumes around the city sidewalks. After all, that exhaust is stronger and more dangerous than a tiny bit of second-hand smoke. What do you mean that is stupid? Oh I forgot--its not "in" to hate cars

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: Flyback
Smoking in gov owned buildings should be completely banned. As should be introducing any other stinky things that makes peoples clothes smell (strong cologne and/or perfume) and breathing difficult. Smoking outside should be a minimum of say 20-30 feet away from the doors.

Private businesses should have the choice 100%.

In the general public (outside, streets, sidewalks) it should be legal to smoke. I'm much more against car exhaust fumes around the city sidewalks. After all, that exhaust is stronger and more dangerous than a tiny bit of second-hand smoke. What do you mean that is stupid? Oh I forgot--its not "in" to hate cars

That is a simple, fair to all solution. As a smoker I fully agree with NOT smoking in planes,
buses and other indoor locations, it's when people start suggesting that smoking OUTDOORS be banned that gets stupid!

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
It's amazing how much this country has drifted from the values instilled by our founding fathers. They would most likely be physically ill if they saw what the government was allowed to do to ones own freedoms these days.

Is spreading cancer a "value" worth fighting for?

My health is worth fighting for, so yes there should be a total ban on smoking at all public places.

Majority rules and non smoker are the minority, i gues smokers are screwed.

What are you smoking anyway?

I am a former smoker who fought and beat mouth cancer.

beating cancer mouth is a great feat. i believe it has the highest mortality rate.

You so acerbic you make me sick. I am just speaking from personal experience as to what smoking does. So go * yourself.

what are you talking about? i was commending you for beating mouth cancer.
i don't see how you come off smacking me down for that.

I completely misinterpreted your post and made a fool of myself and insulted you, I apologise profusely.

I missread mortality as morality and went on a rant from there.

Again, I apologise.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
It's amazing how much this country has drifted from the values instilled by our founding fathers. They would most likely be physically ill if they saw what the government was allowed to do to ones own freedoms these days.

Is spreading cancer a "value" worth fighting for?

My health is worth fighting for, so yes there should be a total ban on smoking at all public places.

Majority rules and non smoker are the minority, i gues smokers are screwed.

What are you smoking anyway?

I am a former smoker who fought and beat mouth cancer.

beating cancer mouth is a great feat. i believe it has the highest mortality rate.

You so acerbic you make me sick. I am just speaking from personal experience as to what smoking does. So go * yourself.

what are you talking about? i was commending you for beating mouth cancer.
i don't see how you come off smacking me down for that.

I completely misinterpreted your post and made a fool of myself and insulted you, I apologise profusely.

I missread mortality as morality and went on a rant from there.

Again, I apologise.

no problem. i appreciate the explanation.

 

[marrr]

 

[Thorny]

I hate the smell of smoke and wish it was banned everywhere, however I'm a firm believer in the owners property rights to allow whatever they want. The government has no business telling business owners what they can or can't allow on thier property. Its up to the property owner to ban smoking if they desire, the government needs to leave it up to them.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Thorny
I hate the smell of smoke and wish it was banned everywhere, however I'm a firm believer in the owners property rights to allow whatever they want. The government has no business telling business owners what they can or can't allow on thier property. Its up to the property owner to ban smoking if they desire, the government needs to leave it up to them.

:thumbsup:

Yup. All the places people think are 'public property' are actually privately owned establishments accessible to the public (stores, restaurants, malls, universities, etc)

Totally the right of the private property owner to decide what?s allowed.

FYI I'm not a smoker and can't stand it either.

 

[Journer]

ill say it again....let private owners do whatever they want with THEIR property! if you dont like to eat somewhere where smoking is allowed, find somewhere that doesnt, jesus christ! as far as TRUE public places (like gov buildings, libraries) that should be banned because the majority doesnt like smoking, but just cuz u dont like it doesnt mean you can start take business owner's rights away.

 

[Aquila76]

I don't approve of the government taking a privilege away from society. Of course, some overuse or misuse their privilege (just like alcohol, food, guns, money, etc.). What the Country needs are educated Citizens with self-control and good judgment.

Fat chance of that; so, a ban is needed to protect the Citizens from themselves.

 

[kamikaze27]

Dude, I vote a yes to both, my friend. Smoking should be banned across the board.
I'm a smoker, light, and it annoys the sh&t out of me. blah blah...

Okay but they should take it easy on doob. I know 3-4 buddies that stopped smoking cigarettes since pot.

Where do we go from here?

 

[AustinRoepke]

There's a smoking ban down here in Illinois, too. But, it is restricted to some cities (Champaign Urbana area right now), and those cities are kind of being used as guinea pigs for (possibly) a state-wide public smoking ban. I think it's a great idea because harm to the public from your own actions should be avoided. On private property, the state shouldn't have much, if any, say on what people do-as long as it's their property or they have permission from the owner. But, there should be a law on smoking at home if you have children, because they are very susceptible to damage from second hand smoking.

If you want to harm yourself, go ahead. The law shouldn't have to intervene there. Just don't harm others in the process.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I don't like the government telling people what to do.
Business owners should be the ones to decide if people can smoke at that business. Nobody but the owners should have any say in it.

Ahh well, I'm glad I quit smoking.

 

[Molondo]

There wasn't always a law about wearing a seatbelt you know

 

[middlehead]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
That said, I'm a non-smoker who WOULD support a partial ban... but I would never support a complete public ban.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I don't like the government telling people what to do.
Business owners should be the ones to decide if people can smoke at that business. Nobody but the owners should have any say in it.

Ahh well, I'm glad I quit smoking.

It's sad that we've drawn another line. Their used to be public property (government, belongs to everyone) and private property (individually owned). Now we have people saying "But it's private property opened to the public" which letting the government slam it's giant fist down on everyone and it's simply just wrong.

BTW, I'm a non-smoker and think it's disgusting...therefore I personally choose not to be around it. It's not that hard.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Malak
Absolutely vote yes. There is no reason why smoking should be legal and many why it should be. It's just as bad as illicit drugs only worse because it's legal. It has a negative impact on the health of others around, especially on those like me. Smoking is much worse for me due to my condition.

The 1993 EPA issued report, which is one of the most widely cited studies by anti-secondhand smoke activists, was deemed, for lack of better words, BULLSH1T by a district court judge in 1998. It's pretty widely known that the EPA skewed the numbers in their favor. That said, I'm a non-smoker who WOULD support a partial ban... but I would never support a complete public ban.

I agree with you 100million percent. Not only were the 1993 EPA numbers doctored, the procedures used to obtain those numbers were grossly unscientific. Still, I find it hard to imagine that there is no danger in second-hand smoke. But without hard data to support it, you're still basing your argument on assumptions and theory.

I'm a non-smoker, somewhat allergic to cigarette smoke, but think a society-wide absolute ban is preposterous. If that were to happen...kiss the coffee good-bye sometime down the road. (diluted cocain is all it is...). Of course, I don't see that happening; but I bet an anti-coffee tee-to-tattling interest group emerging....well, I am frightened of Starbucks having free reign of peddling a highly-addictive, potentially dangerous substance to anyone, anywhere, without any regulation.....

 

[krunchykrome]

I vote yes. Ban smoking in all public places, including crowded places outdoors...like lines at an amusement park.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I vote yes. Ban smoking in all public places, including crowded places outdoors...like lines at an amusement park.

Public = collectively owned (such as public parks) and government financed.

Private = Theme parks.

Just because something is OPEN to the public, does not mean it IS public. You don't have a right to be on private property. Private property owners have a right to let you on to conduct business.

We are getting our priorities out of wack.

Why would you (or anyone) advocate authoritarianism toward private property?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I agree with you 100million percent. Not only were the 1993 EPA numbers doctored, the procedures used to obtain those numbers were grossly unscientific. Still, I find it hard to imagine that there is no danger in second-hand smoke. But without hard data to support it, you're still basing your argument on assumptions and theory.

I'm a non-smoker, somewhat allergic to cigarette smoke, but think a society-wide absolute ban is preposterous. If that were to happen...kiss the coffee good-bye sometime down the road. (diluted cocain is all it is...). Of course, I don't see that happening; but I bet an anti-coffee tee-to-tattling interest group emerging....well, I am frightened of Starbucks having free reign of peddling a highly-addictive, potentially dangerous substance to anyone, anywhere, without any regulation.....

I think the slippery slope argument has already proven to be true. We should never ban things or put regulations on anything because it may be harmful. Scientific experiments are never exact and are constantly changing. If we believed every experiment and study, we'd be worrying about global cooling, saturated fat more than trans fat, etc...

We're always looking for the government to step in and "help" society in someway. Taxes on cigarettes don't help anyone and ultimately wind up hurting the middle and lower class smokers who smoke. It's not the public's position to decide whether people should stop smoking or not. In fact, where are all of these "sin" taxes going? Since they're so highly taxed, I would have expected a sales tax/gas tax decrease in my state since they've come into place...it didn't happen.