Smoking Ban

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: rickn
only in public places(inside restaurants), which is what we got already here where I live. So, I have no problems with smokers anymore. If they wanna kill themselves, that's their business

Inside restaurants are public places? Since when?

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: rickn
only in public places(inside restaurants), which is what we got already here where I live. So, I have no problems with smokers anymore. If they wanna kill themselves, that's their business

Inside restaurants are public places? Since when?

We have a restaurant and workplace ban on smoking here in florida. restaurants aren't public property, but they service the general public, and that's what I meant

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: rickn
only in public places(inside restaurants), which is what we got already here where I live. So, I have no problems with smokers anymore. If they wanna kill themselves, that's their business

Inside restaurants are public places? Since when?

We have a restaurant and workplace ban on smoking here in florida. restaurants aren't public property, but they service the general public, and that's what I meant

The way I see it is if the owner wants to let people smoke, the owner should be able to do it. Those that don't like it, well... they know where the door is.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: rickn
only in public places(inside restaurants), which is what we got already here where I live. So, I have no problems with smokers anymore. If they wanna kill themselves, that's their business

Are you willing to pick up the tab for it though? That's my main concern.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Prohibition of a socially accepted drug will never work.

Look at alcohol. Look at Mary Jane.

There is no way in a free society to enforce it properly. Eventually, you'll end up having to throw people in jail for lighting up, while at the same time still have them smoke. Which will do more harm? Do you really need more people in jail for doing something that only hurts themselves?

At least in my experience, the social acceptability of tobacco has dropped dramatically over the last few years. Many places don't even let you smoke in bars anymore. Some cities won't even let you smoke outside (can only smoke in your own home). The foreign guys in my class all smoke and they actually got harassed by a couple of teenagers last weekend for smoking in front of a grocery store.

Originally posted by: Vic
I imagine that a ban on smoking would be as successful as Prohibition was. Or as the War on Drugs has been. In other words, the cost of enforcement would be more than any health savings. Before you discount that cost, remember that 23% of all adult Americans smoke. That's almost 50 million smokers you'd be trying to force to quit under law. Mark my words, a high percentage of them would smoke anyway. And the very illegality would encourage others to start smoking as the "cool thing to do". It would be a disaster. Better that we just quit this socialized medicine bullsh!t and quit poking our noses into our neighbors' asses (and then complaining about the smell).

I agree with you for the most part, but hospitals and healthcare professionals are and always will be required to treat people whether or not they can afford it. Raising taxes further seems like the best alternative I suppose.

As with anything, I'm not a fan of allowing it just because there will always be people who will break the law. I'm also interested in the financial impact that it has on me as a taxpayer. The current smokers problem is something I hadn't really thought of. I have lots of friends that smoke and all of them want to quit. Maybe I'll do my PhD research on a cure for smoking.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: rickn
only in public places(inside restaurants), which is what we got already here where I live. So, I have no problems with smokers anymore. If they wanna kill themselves, that's their business

Are you willing to pick up the tab for it though? That's my main concern.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Prohibition of a socially accepted drug will never work.

Look at alcohol. Look at Mary Jane.

There is no way in a free society to enforce it properly. Eventually, you'll end up having to throw people in jail for lighting up, while at the same time still have them smoke. Which will do more harm? Do you really need more people in jail for doing something that only hurts themselves?

At least in my experience, the social acceptability of tobacco has dropped dramatically over the last few years. Many places don't even let you smoke in bars anymore. Some cities won't even let you smoke outside (can only smoke in your own home). The foreign guys in my class all smoke and they actually got harassed by a couple of teenagers last weekend for smoking in front of a grocery store.

Originally posted by: Vic
I imagine that a ban on smoking would be as successful as Prohibition was. Or as the War on Drugs has been. In other words, the cost of enforcement would be more than any health savings. Before you discount that cost, remember that 23% of all adult Americans smoke. That's almost 50 million smokers you'd be trying to force to quit under law. Mark my words, a high percentage of them would smoke anyway. And the very illegality would encourage others to start smoking as the "cool thing to do". It would be a disaster. Better that we just quit this socialized medicine bullsh!t and quit poking our noses into our neighbors' asses (and then complaining about the smell).

I agree with you for the most part, but hospitals and healthcare professionals are and always will be required to treat people whether or not they can afford it. Raising taxes further seems like the best alternative I suppose.

As with anything, I'm not a fan of allowing it just because there will always be people who will break the law. I'm also interested in the financial impact that it has on me as a taxpayer. The current smokers problem is something I hadn't really thought of. I have lots of friends that smoke and all of them want to quit. Maybe I'll do my PhD research on a cure for smoking.

Smokers cost tax payers/soceity less money cause they die early according to a johns hopkins study. It also creates lots of jobs, from tobacco farmers to oncology wards. We should be encouraging smoking.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I agree with you for the most part, but hospitals and healthcare professionals are and always will be required to treat people whether or not they can afford it. Raising taxes further seems like the best alternative I suppose.

As with anything, I'm not a fan of allowing it just because there will always be people who will break the law. I'm also interested in the financial impact that it has on me as a taxpayer. The current smokers problem is something I hadn't really thought of. I have lots of friends that smoke and all of them want to quit. Maybe I'll do my PhD research on a cure for smoking.

You need to be careful about your desire to legislate tyranny. There is no reason that a democracy cannot be as tyrannical as the worst despot, if not more so. Once the idea comes across that "I don't like what my neighbor does, and even though his actions harm no one else, I'm gonna stop him just because I don't like it", then you are down the path to tyranny. One reason why our country does not have a true democracy is because the best possible example of a true democracy is a lynch mob.

Your healthcare friends should be thankful that the smokers keep them in a job. Would they prefer everyone was always healthy and they were out of work? Don't let them get all altruistic and lie to you. And as smokers die younger (on average), they collect less old age benefits, so they create less of a strain on our stretched Social Security system. It balances out. Plus, almost everyone will incur huge healthcare costs before they die, smokers and non-smokers alike, so putting the blame on smokers is not looking at the big picture.
In the meantime, you are suggesting a massively expensive plan to force people to stop harming themselves simply because you don't like it, and defending the expense on the premise "there will always be people who will break the law" while ignoring that your proposed law is so contrary to the basic ideals of freedom that Thoreau himself would probably rise from his grave just to light one up and spite you.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
You need to be careful about your desire to legislate tyranny. There is no reason that a democracy cannot be as tyrannical as the worst despot, if not more so. Once the idea comes across that "I don't like what my neighbor does, and even though his actions harm no one else, I'm gonna stop him just because I don't like it", then you are down the path to tyranny. One reason why our country does not have a true democracy is because the best possible example of a true democracy is a lynch mob.

Your healthcare friends should be thankful that the smokers keep them in a job. Would they prefer everyone was always healthy and they were out of work? Don't let them get all altruistic and lie to you. And as smokers die younger (on average), they collect less old age benefits, so they create less of a strain on our stretched Social Security system. It balances out. Plus, almost everyone will incur huge healthcare costs before they die, smokers and non-smokers alike, so putting the blame on smokers is not looking at the big picture.
In the meantime, you are suggesting a massively expensive plan to force people to stop harming themselves simply because you don't like it, and defending the expense on the premise "there will always be people who will break the law" while ignoring that your proposed law is so contrary to the basic ideals of freedom that Thoreau himself would probably rise from his grave just to light one up and spite you.

You completely ignore my point, that smoking is yet another one of those 'it doesn't harm anyone else' fluffballs that people keep flinging around in this forum. If I'm paying for someone who voluntarily gave himself lung cancer, then I am hurt by his actions. I would much rather give that money to fund research for diseases that aren't chosen by those who contract them. If that's tyranny then so be it.

My healthcare friends will have a job regardless. The difference being that they would be able to treat people who didn't choose to be sick. Again, it comes down to choice and personal responsibility in my mind. Try reading what I say before you attack it - you'll be able to attack it much more effectively if you do.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
You need to be careful about your desire to legislate tyranny. There is no reason that a democracy cannot be as tyrannical as the worst despot, if not more so. Once the idea comes across that "I don't like what my neighbor does, and even though his actions harm no one else, I'm gonna stop him just because I don't like it", then you are down the path to tyranny. One reason why our country does not have a true democracy is because the best possible example of a true democracy is a lynch mob.

Your healthcare friends should be thankful that the smokers keep them in a job. Would they prefer everyone was always healthy and they were out of work? Don't let them get all altruistic and lie to you. And as smokers die younger (on average), they collect less old age benefits, so they create less of a strain on our stretched Social Security system. It balances out. Plus, almost everyone will incur huge healthcare costs before they die, smokers and non-smokers alike, so putting the blame on smokers is not looking at the big picture.
In the meantime, you are suggesting a massively expensive plan to force people to stop harming themselves simply because you don't like it, and defending the expense on the premise "there will always be people who will break the law" while ignoring that your proposed law is so contrary to the basic ideals of freedom that Thoreau himself would probably rise from his grave just to light one up and spite you.

You completely ignore my point, that smoking is yet another one of those 'it doesn't harm anyone else' fluffballs that people keep flinging around in this forum. If I'm paying for someone who voluntarily gave himself lung cancer, then I am hurt by his actions. I would much rather give that money to fund research for diseases that aren't chosen by those who contract them. If that's tyranny then so be it.

My healthcare friends will have a job regardless. The difference being that they would be able to treat people who didn't choose to be sick. Again, it comes down to choice and personal responsibility in my mind. Try reading what I say before you attack it - you'll be able to attack it much more effectively if you do.

By those standards, I guess we should scrap research on HIV and AIDS, afterall most of the people with it chose to get it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
By those standards, I guess we should scrap research on HIV and AIDS, afterall most of the people with it chose to get it.

Ignorant people in Africa didn't get AIDS knowing full well that it was a likely consequence of their actions. That is the difference.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You completely ignore my point, that smoking is yet another one of those 'it doesn't harm anyone else' fluffballs that people keep flinging around in this forum. If I'm paying for someone who voluntarily gave himself lung cancer, then I am hurt by his actions. I would much rather give that money to fund research for diseases that aren't chosen by those who contract them. If that's tyranny then so be it.

My healthcare friends will have a job regardless. The difference being that they would be able to treat people who didn't choose to be sick. Again, it comes down to choice and personal responsibility in my mind. Try reading what I say before you attack it - you'll be able to attack it much more effectively if you do.

I could say the same to you, as you missed my point entirely. But if you're gonna get all up-in-arms about, we better start banning soda drinks, and fatty foods, and people who have too many carbs in their diets, and so on. What about those who don't exercise properly? We better pass a law to force them into the gym! Oh no, and then there's all those adrenaline junkies who partake in dangerous activities. I assume we better pass laws against those too, as they could hurt themselves and that could cost us all money so they better not use that "they only hurt themselves" argument! And driving cars, how could I forget that? 50k killed each year, 300k injured... obviously that too must be outlawed, as the health cost is simply too much.
This is not a "slippery slope" argument, btw. This is exactly your argument applied to all those other activities where people choose to cost us all more money.

Everyone dies. Get over it.

 

[LunarRay]

Zebo,

Smokers cost tax payers/soceity less money cause they die early according to a johns hopkins study. It also creates lots of jobs, from tobacco farmers to oncology wards. We should be encouraging smoking.

Zebobeam... hehehehe..

Cigarette smoke bothers me and I smoke.. I can imagine what it must be like for the folks who don't smoke.. I won't smoke in public areas or around the folks here who don't smoke.. in fact, I have three of them air filter thingi going in my room where I play on the computer so as to eliminate the smoke from drifting into other areas of the house.

I guess I started smoking young but the military ventures really made smoking a part of my life. Being able to buy ciggies for pennies a pack and they did seem to reduce the stress.. I imagine it was the same for the Korean and WWII vets too..

But I'd support a smoking ban in the areas where other folks are likely to be who may not wish to breathe cigarette smoke.. IF there were bans on other toxic breathe-ables like heavy smog producing sources and the like..

There must be a place where a person can enjoy personal choices but not at the expense of others who are harmed by those choices.

 

[Zebo]

Please quit Lunar I like you and I'm sure many many other people do to I'm just using reversi psycho stuff to get people to think.

But it is your choice.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Please quit Lunar I like you and I'm sure many many other people do to I'm just using reversi psycho stuff to get people to think.

But it is your choice.

I stop for awhile and then pick up one and start again.. on and off on and off.. I'm trying to use the gum in place of the ciggy alot.. and it works for awhile... I would love to just stop and never look back. I've to work much harder at it to win, I think.
One day I'm hoping I'll get so mad at me that I'll just say F it and toss what I've left in the trash and just gut it out... Last yr I did that for four months.. but, chewed the gum on and off.. I need not chewing the gum or being around anyone who smokes.. and only my wife smokes around here..

Thanks for those kind words and concern..

 

[alchemize]

In restaurants and public places, yes. In bars, no.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
I could say the same to you, as you missed my point entirely. But if you're gonna get all up-in-arms about, we better start banning soda drinks, and fatty foods, and people who have too many carbs in their diets, and so on. What about those who don't exercise properly? We better pass a law to force them into the gym! Oh no, and then there's all those adrenaline junkies who partake in dangerous activities. I assume we better pass laws against those too, as they could hurt themselves and that could cost us all money so they better not use that "they only hurt themselves" argument! And driving cars, how could I forget that? 50k killed each year, 300k injured... obviously that too must be outlawed, as the health cost is simply too much.
This is not a "slippery slope" argument, btw. This is exactly your argument applied to all those other activities where people choose to cost us all more money.

Everyone dies. Get over it.

I have to eat to survive. You don't have to smoke. People are required to have car insurance in case they do hurt/kill someone so it will be paid for. The difference between the activities that you described and smoking is that smoking is voluntary and unnecessary on any level.

Everyone dies, but not everyone chooses how they will die at others' expense.

 

[umbrella39]

I voted yes because I smoke and that is one sure way to quit. It will never happen though. Too much money in treating smokers for illness.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Zebo
Please quit Lunar I like you and I'm sure many many other people do to I'm just using reversi psycho stuff to get people to think.

But it is your choice.

I stop for awhile and then pick up one and start again.. on and off on and off.. I'm trying to use the gum in place of the ciggy alot.. and it works for awhile... I would love to just stop and never look back. I've to work much harder at it to win, I think.
One day I'm hoping I'll get so mad at me that I'll just say F it and toss what I've left in the trash and just gut it out... Last yr I did that for four months.. but, chewed the gum on and off.. I need not chewing the gum or being around anyone who smokes.. and only my wife smokes around here..

Thanks for those kind words and concern..

I guess for me, a never smoker and basically allegic to alcohol, it's hard to understand how a product could have such a hold on a person. I would never let myself, my actions be controlled by a chemical substance. Especially one pimped by corp america since I'm kinda a rebel. How can you? Voluntarly? Trading your life and shortness of breath for rolling country estates in the hamptons for Phillip Morris Heirs? Fusk em. Fusk that. You're stronger than that.

 

[daniel1113]

Nope. I'm not a smoker, nor will I ever be smoker, and anti-smoking legislation is one thing I will NEVER support, except for in hospitals, airplanes, and private property.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Nope. I'm not a smoker, nor will I ever be smoker, and anti-smoking legislation is one thing I will NEVER support, except for in hospitals, airplanes, and private property.

Wait. private, but not public?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: alchemize
In restaurants and public places, yes. In bars, no.

Even at this I disagree. It is attitudes like Cyclo and Isla which annoy me the most....

owners who pay the property taxes should ALWAYS have the final say over what goes on in their establishments within reason, if people are allowed under the law to buy said items and use them then the owners should decide if their use is allowed in their facilities....

I live in Massachusetts, we recently passed a statewide smoking ban, and while it is nice to go into a bar or place to eat and not be smoked out, I also realize that it is WRONG of the state to have mandated such a change, business owners are now complaining of lost revinue as are employees who work on tips, in many cases people ignore the rule....

I think Vic makes the best points, if people want to talk about slippery slopes then this is an ideal example....as Vic said, how long before we start to punish those who are overweight? or until we ban all fatty and or bad for you foods?...why stop with smoking?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alchemize
In restaurants and public places, yes. In bars, no.

Even at this I disagree. It is attitudes like Cyclo and Isla which annoy me the most....

owners who pay the property taxes should ALWAYS have the final say over what goes on in their establishments within reason, if people are allowed under the law to buy said items and use them then the owners should decide if their use is allowed in their facilities....

I live in Massachusetts, we recently passed a statewide smoking ban, and while it is nice to go into a bar or place to eat and not be smoked out, I also realize that it is WRONG of the state to have mandated such a change, business owners are now complaining of lost revinue as are employees who work on tips, in many cases people ignore the rule....

I think Vic makes the best points, if people want to talk about slippery slopes then this is an ideal example....as Vic said, how long before we start to punish those who are overweight? or until we ban all fatty and or bad for you foods?...why stop with smoking?

You failed to mention anything regarding why my viewpoint 'annoys' you. You also failed to read my post as to why there is a significant difference between food/driving and smoking.

 

[thelordemperor]

Smoking should banned under such circumstances as it could effect another person, including children, babies, old people, whoever. It should be considered a form of poisoning, you're welcome to poison yourself, but not others. Smokers would have to go damn far out of their way to smoke and GOOD RIDDANCE to 'em.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

When you say support a ban on smoking tobacco, what are you proposing? It's a legal substance now, so in what way would it be banned?

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
<-----------Smoked from 1975 to Jan 31st 2004. If the issue were put on a ballot, I would support the ban.

Oh so you just want some help from the government to help you kick the habit?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
When you say support a ban on smoking tobacco, what are you proposing? It's a legal substance now, so in what way would it be banned?

It's legal now, so a ban would make it... illegal.