In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I am quite surprised to read these ANTI- answers from a group
of people that hate restrictions on our sports but allow it for other
things. Are we that "clean" to cast stones? Seems we have one of the highest rates of 4X4 users that gobble gas and polute the air. We
shoot lead bullets that could contaminate the waters, make much
powder smoke (specially black powder shooters) also some people who
are living near ranges dont like the continual noise of firing. And
we are the ones who are complaining about smokers??? And speaking of nose from ranges... People living a bit less than a mile away from
our club range had the E.P.A. monitor the sound of shooting in a attempt to close us down. Luckily while monitoring, a private Lear
Jet took off from a nearby airport and over their heads. They just
packed up and left with their equiptment. Just who in hell are we
to critize??? Everyone is anti-something in this new day and age.
Me? I am anti-anti.
magnumjim -- Many things that are taxed are also regulated and limited. If you can't read a sign or obey a law, then YOU leave. Or stay, at your peril. Don't count on anyone around you to be more civilized about it than you are willing to be. Protesters, regardless of the topic, wind up in jail when they resist -- I think the nightly news proves that.
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
There's a lot of fuzzy logic in this "debate," usually. In the first place, private property is private as long as those on the property are themselves private and unanimously so. As soon as you invite the public at large inside, you expose yourself. Here in Fort Wayne, the smoking ordinance does not apply to private clubs -- as long as everyone in the room is a member. IF a room in the private club is rented out for a public function, where not everyone will be a member, the private club exception doesn't count. Get it? Private functions can cater to the membership. Public functions are, well, public.
Addicts get angry fast when something comes between them and the substance. Their easy willingness to give up friends or businesses that interfere with the habit is only textbook symptomology of the addiction -- but sadly the addict can't see that his willingness to abandon friends and longtime favorite businesses when smoking becomes an issue PROVES they're addicted to something that has become more important to them than their friends, their favorite businesses, etc. When did a burning dried weed become more important than one's friends?
It's not about personal freedom when you're in a public place. Now, listen, I'm trying to say this without a scintilla of emotion: I don't mind whether someone smokes, farts, or sings square dance tunes at the top of their lungs. But your rights end where mine begin, in shared space. Mine end where yours begin. Each of us has our own set of valid boundaries. Unfortunately, I don't think we fully understand what a "public place" is -- how shared space differs from private space. For one thing, noise ordinances are about everyone's rights in shared space. So are smoking ordinances. Only the details differ.
It should not be about getting all PO'ed when someone mentions the word smoking in the wrong tone of voice. It should be about respecting each other's rights. I used to smoke. Glad I'm free of it. But I never liked smoke while I eat, for example, from me or anyone. But you know what? I know, having smoked, why this isn't an issue for smokers -- they can't smell anything normally. Ah, the amazing taste of food after you've stopped smoking for a bit. How did I ever get along without it? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot -- the addiction drowns out everything else. If smoking ruins the taste of my food -- it may ruin the taste of yours that much more.
Your rights end where mine begin. Ordinances became necessary because people with a bad habit cannot, or will not, refrain from lighting up when the addiction says "smoke." There are plenty of smokers who CANNOT physically abstain long enough, by stopwatch, to sit down and enjoy a meal and a conversation. The addiction, sooner or later, sends electric shocks through the body saying "smoke! Smoke!" And the smoker responds. He holds back with difficulty, and sometimes irritability. How many of you smokers have reached for a ciggie automatically just from the stress of reading this so far?
If you can't obey the rules of the house, YOU must go elsewhere, particularly when the habit is a proven public health hazard. I just hope you don't go home and abuse your kids with second-hand smoke before they are old enough to make up their own minds. Heck, you might even be predisposing them to become smokers by having to breathe it at an early age, like crack babies. Could happen. Now, that is not an inflammatory thought -- but it may seem that way to a smoker.
There is no way to make a statement about smoking with any wind in its sails that will not anger most smokers. If you have the impulse to leave this board altogether while reading the opposing arguments, by the way, congratulations -- You've got a bad case of tobacco addiction.... [xx(][;)]
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
You guys say you can't smoke in public places in NYC like it's a bad thing....I don't understand. I applaud the city for restoring the rights of those oppressed for so long by the UNCARING and IGNORANT smokers who chose to breathe their smoke into the faces of non-smokers for so long. When I moved here to Michigan from California one of the things I noticed was the crass behavior by many(not all but many) smokers. In Califonia we were just used to eating a meal in a non stench enveloped environment. And yes here in Michigan we did start going to other restaurants when we were hit by the overwhelming stench of second hand smoke. But I have always been angered by the apparent innocence professed by many smokers that anyone could be offended by their smoke. In any case this is good news for people visiting NYC. Beach
Beachmaster-I have always been amazed by the "crassness" of non smokers. Imagine going up to someone, in a place where smoking is allowed, and telling someone to exstinguish their cigarette.
I have always felt, that if you are in a situation that you are not happy with, you leave. Everybody has rights, and one persons rights might be in contradiction with another. What do I do when in a place where people are doing things that I do not approve of, or bother me? I leave-it is that simple. It amazes me that people cant realize that they can not always be pleased with their surroundings, especially when going to places that the public frequents. Whether its smoking, or any other behavior, I could not imagine walking up to someone, and expect them to curtail their behavior because it bothers me. You are around the public, you have to deal with behavior you do not like. And if the behavior bothers you that much, then leave.
I hate when I go to a restuarant, and they have the music blaring. I cant stand music played at ear splitting decibels. I guess most of you would go up to the manger, complain that you do not like the music so loud, and request that he turn it down. I would never do that.
I would finish my meal, or go somewhere else. I realize that I may not like loud music, but a hell of a lot of people in the restaurant obviuously do, and I have no business asking them to opress their enjoyment. Bottom line, if the loud music was a problem with the customers THE OWNERS would turn the music down-but it is obvious the people who frequent the establishment like loud music, so the owners are not going to turn the music down. AND I SURE AS HELL DONT WANT NO LAW BY A GOVERNMENT PROHIBITING MUSIC IN SO CALLED PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENTS!
If enough people are bothered by the smoke, and stop atttending a smoking establishment, the owners would have to prohibit smoking-it would be a necessary business decision. And I am fine with that. I do not think I have a RIGHT to smoke anywhere I please. If I am in a non smoking restaurant, I would not demand that my right to smoke must be honored.
If I am hanging out with non smoking friends, I do not light up, contrary to Offerors opinion that smokers automatically abandon their friends for the sweet leaf._ I just think we should me more respectful of the rights of these establishments to run their business as they please, and not have big brother tell them what they can and cant do in their establishments-their PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENTS
A public place is a place the PUBLIC pays for. A private place is a place where the bills are paid for by individuals(s) AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Let the people who are paying the bills and running the business decide what is best for their business.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
Offeror- You should check out Frank Zappas autobiography. He talks about being laid up in the hospital for three weeks, and was unable to have a smoke all that time. He talks about how amazed he was how much stronger his senses were. He could smell things and taste things he could never smell and taste before-and he didnt like it. He didnt like the way things smelled, and didnt like the way things tasted. He needed to smoke to avoid those bad smells and tastes.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
When I'm on the road my choices of where I can stop to eat is very limited, 99% of the truckstops permit smoking in their dining rooms. as I have stated I am a smoker, and as a smoker I am still disgusted by smoke in my face when I'm trying to eat. What should I do, go hungry because somebodies smoking rights override my right to a decent meal? It is being said about the rights of smokers, wel it appears that the rights of smokers are beating the rights of non smokers, non smokers have a choice, leave or have a disgusting meal. man it is only friggin common courtesy! Like I said in a previous post, would you want me farting in your face while you are eating? Quit blowing that damned smoke in my face! Sure smokers have rights, but so do the others, you should not force your habit on someone else, when you tell me to breath the smoke or leave, you are telling me I have no rights. Will it kill someone to have thier meal and then go for a puff? I smoke two packs a day, I can easily sit down at a table for an hour, have my meal then go either outside or to a smoking area for a smoke. Why is that so hard? One of the reasons nonsmokers come down on smokers so hard is because of the aggressive smokers pushing their smoke in a nonsmokers face and telling them to leave if they don't like it.
7mm-Get a cooler, and bring a bagged lunch-problem solved.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
HEHEHHEHEHE[:)]
Remember Clarence Thomas supreme court nomination? He was being called to the carpet by Ted Kennedy, because Thomas had at one time said there is never an excuse for going to school with dirty drawes. Ted was furious. It went something like:
"Well ehat if they can only afford one pair of drawes?"
"Then you should wash your drawes every night."
"Well what if you dont have hot water?"
"Well you can boil water."
Well what if you do not have running water?"
"You can go to the closest stream, boil water, and wash your drawes in that way."
Every problem has a solution.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
I see a lot of people making a mistake of law. If a place serves drinks, they must obtain a license to do that kind of business. If a place serves food they must have a license to do so. Now if the business is operating under a license, then they must follow the laws that pertain to that business. Therefore a bar is not a "private place" and neither is a restaurant. So yes the states can enforse behavior in these establishments, just as they enforce laws about clean kitchens, disposal of trash ect.
Smoking has been proven to be a medical problem, and second hand smoke is also proven to be harmful. Smoking is on its way out of society, just stop smoking and you'll be around long enough to see it. This isn't about "rights", it is about proven medical facts.
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
?The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.?
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
I agree, smoking is stupid and I lose respect for a person automatically when I see or find out someone smokes.
Want to know why?
If you were sitting at work and the guy next to you had some dirty broken glass and was cutting his flesh with it would you be disgusted at the individual?
Of course you would. Smokers do the same thing basically, except they pay alot of money to destroy thier health and annoy the people around them in the process. Makes no sense, but people do it.
Of course there are laws that pertain to establishments and businesses-no "mistake" about that- and governments certainly have the authority to make more laws dealing with these establishments. But the point is we should want to restrain our government from getting into places that it has no business going. Legally they have the authority-but do we really want government to have so much power over our lives and our busineses? I dont. Let the wishes of the public dictate how an establishment will be operated-Do not allow government to make decisions that the people can decide on their own.
And by the way, the studies I have read disprove the second hand smoke myth- Most studies do. A handful of studies say it is harmful. And even if it is harmful(though most studies say it isnt), no one is being forced to endure second hand smoke-if you are that worried, you can always leave harms way.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
Dumb & deadly but very enjoyable. I like to blow smoke rings. Infact you might say I'm hooked on them. The thing is you need a place where there is not much wind. I find nightclubs & restrurants work the best. [:o)]
I think the tobacco companies should voluntarily stop selling cigarettes to NY City all together. Mayor would loose millions in taxes & the people going through withdrawel would start rioting.
Drobs-A few months ago, New York came out with a "code" that said the cigarette manufacturers had to come up with a cigarette that was less prone to causing accidental fires. The cigarette companies said it aint gonna happen-which would mean cigarettes in their present state would no longer be sold in New York. The story went further, and said the revenue that would be lost from cigarette sales for the state and city of New York would be so devestating, the city would go under. The study also said if cigarette companies stopped selling cigaretees in the entire USA, only 6 stqates of the fifty would not go under. It is always amusing when they raise cigarette taxes-I mean whos gonna complain except a few smokers-the problem is, the legislatures are not accountable for their spending, cause they do not have to answer to all the people. It will be funny indeed if the cig companies stopped selling all tgether, and the legislatures had to explain their bloated budgets, and now ALL the people would have to pick up the bill. Cigarettes are a great safety net/accountability escape for the states.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
Salzo you have some cogent points. And I have to admit that I have never gone up to a smoker in a smoking establishment and told him to extinquish his cigarette. The crassness that I refer to is the ignorant smoker who delights in exhaling his smoke in near orgasmic rapture over two or three tables next to him. And yes Salzo that happens more frequently than most smokers would admit. I do appreciate the efforts of many smokers to exhale and direct their smoke away from the innocent. The bottom line though is that in a public place second hand smoke presents a threat to the health of many and as such I feel a government is within its rights to minimize the threat.
I do like your comments on the cigarette taxes. It would be neat to see what city and state governments would do if their income were curtailed as a result of no sales of cigarettes over the course of two or three years. Certainly would have budget crises in many areas.....might have a healthy country afterwards if the smokers in boycotting cigarettes lost their interest in tobacco. I think I really would like to see that because then the non-smokers could help out with the ramifications of no tobacco tax. Beach
I would be very interested to see the numbers on what the income is on these cigarette taxes, and what the costs are on the backside with medical costs for lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, and the copious other conditions brought on by this habit.
I would think this would be two to one on the expenses of medicial conditions. And a large part would be unrecoverable expenses that the public pays, that are not covered by insurance.
Again I think this is a medical issue, and not a rights issue.
What do you think?
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
?The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.?
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
quote:Originally posted by Alpine
I would be very interested to see the numbers on what the income is on these cigarette taxes, and what the costs are on the backside with medical costs for lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, and the copious other conditions brought on by this habit.
I would think this would be two to one on the expenses of medicial conditions. And a large part would be unrecoverable expenses that the public pays, that are not covered by insurance.
Again I think this is a medical issue, and not a rights issue.
What do you think?
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
Well now you are getting into the issue of state sponsored health care-which I just assume the states stay out of the health care business, and allow individuals and insurance companies to cover everyone. If an insurance company refuses to cover a smoker, than so be it.
And if you think that smokers are more of a burden to the state because of their habvit, remember that smokers do not live as long, and so are a burden to the state for a lessor time than all those healthy non smokers who live into their 80s and 90s/
A smoker who dies in his seventies is less of a burden to the state than a healthy non smoker who lives into their 90s.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
And since it is a health issue and not a rights issue, and therefore the state SHOULD get involved with whether or not smoking should be permitted in restaurants- might as well let the state get their entire nose under the tent.
THe state should prohibit fatty foods from being served in restaurants. And pasta, nothing good about that.All that fatty food and pasta creates health problems, which are passed on to the public when they have to foot the medical bills for these over indulgers. And that loud music? Studies show that more people go deaf today than in the past, due to the fact that people use headphones, and listen to music and radio at much higher decibels than yesterday-might as well get the state in there to prohibit music in restaurants.
How bout drinking? Many people die from complications due to heave alcohol intake, and many "innocent" victims die as a result of someone exercising their right to drink-states mine as well prohibit drinking in restaurants.
How about meeting someone in a bar? Many people contract STDs from people they meet in bars or restaurants-for health reasons, might as well make it illegal to pick up other people in an eating/drinking establishment. Yup you all are right. The state should decide these "health" issues for us-they really know what is best-freedom to live your life or run your business as you see fit be damned.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
I am not dumb enough to pursue this doggedly in a long series of responses, because I will have smokers here hating my guts, if they don't already. Just a quick thought or two and then I'm out of this. Nobody's mind will be change anyhow, I imagine:
Proprietors voluntarily buy into public-oriented businesses with their eyes open. As has been pointed out, ABC licenses bars, and the city decides who gets a license and in what neighborhoods.
The BATF licenses dealers, and they and the city and state together decide who gets a license, and in what zone, in what part of town, etc.
Girlie bars have similar restrictions on alcohol as well as the local community standard for lewd behavior, even though these activities all take place inside a building on the owner's private property.
Patrons may be tossed out, legally, for a variety of unacceptable behaviors in these places. If the other patrons or management can't stop the behavior, the police can even be called to enter the establishment and remove the offender.
All these businesses, privately owned, still must adhere to public policy. Unless, of course, you enjoy sitting in your castle by yourself; then I assume you can pretty much do what you want, if you keep the door locked. But as soon as you unlock the door, and invite the public into your domain, boom. The people have rights, even when standing on your floors.
One difference between these various businesses of course is, guns are NOT inherently dangerous. They are inert and useful until misused. Folks who walk into a shop off the street, though, must pass a short test before they can buy one.
Alcohol is only dangerous to that unknown segment of the population who will react to it with a craving and an increasingly bad case of alcoholism. People must show ID to get a drink, and may be cut off or asked to go if they drink to excess.
Cigarettes are inert too, until you light them, but smoke, and second-hand smoke, have been proven dangerous to most people, with occasional exceptions who seem to last a long time even though they smoke daily.
The point is pretty clear. Guns are a rights issue (at least WE believe they are); alcohol is a rights issue unless it becomes a public health hazard (illegal drugs are a public health and crime issue) -- and cigarettes are now primarily a public health issue, when smoked in public -- even when smoked by private individuals -- because smoke travels.
If 35 state economies crunch when cigs go down -- hey, they'll get over it.
As for Frank Zappa -- he's dead. Saw him perform once in an L.A. club -- he and Dweezil were great. He died too young. Still, I don't object to his smoking choice -- unless he insisted on doing it in prohibited public places (!)
I wrote a letter to the editor when the Fort Wayne ordinance was passed requiring a separate smoking room in restaurants if smoking was to be allowed -- and smokers were yelling that they wouldn't go into a non-smoking restaurant and that their favorite small restaurants which couldn't be divided would all go under. In the first place, if that were true, the smokers were putting them under by refusing to go in there and eat while abstaining for an hour. In the second place, I said that sometimes in life, people are unwilling to get vital health care for one reason or another, especially addicts. And when it happens, sometimes that means driving a combative patient to the hospital against his will; and sometimes it means we all have a smoke-free place to eat.
The trouble with the worst smokers is they "welcome" anyone who doesn't like it to leave; we, on the other hand, would not be thoughtless enough to "welcome" the smoker to leave -- we often like them; we simply ask him or her to obey the law and not light up in a public space.
It's not a question of who has to leave, is it? -- except in the mind of a stubborn smoker, I guess. The power of smoking overrides the third option occuring to them -- stay, and don't light up; then I don't have to leave, and we can enjoy our company. That's strange, to put it mildly. I go back to the concept that one person's rights end precisely where another's begin, and in public, that does not include the necessity for someone to leave.
You really have to ask about the mindset that thinks about "go away" as a solution, in a social setting whose whole point is to be with other people and have a good time, rather than home alone. How is it that the concept of "leaving" pops into the mind so easily as some sort of an "answer"? In reality, people are not that disposable. Is this the teflon-coated species of smoker, smokerantus teflonicus, the one to whom real people are optional compared to Messrs. Benson & Hedges?
What does that mean, "You are WELCOME to go elsewhere." A very unwelcoming use of the word "welcome," in my view, and so, very ironic.
Okay, now I'll say everyone is entitled to his opinion, but please don't expect to break the law and have no one speak up. Cigarette smoke speaks very loudly when it wafts over the "Thank you for not Smoking" sign. (A sign, by the way, that some nicotine addicts find irritating and condescending -- because there is no polite way, in their view, to say "No smoking.")
I'm tempted to blow this all away, but I spent too much time on it. Please forgive me my excesses. [;)]
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Comments
of people that hate restrictions on our sports but allow it for other
things. Are we that "clean" to cast stones? Seems we have one of the highest rates of 4X4 users that gobble gas and polute the air. We
shoot lead bullets that could contaminate the waters, make much
powder smoke (specially black powder shooters) also some people who
are living near ranges dont like the continual noise of firing. And
we are the ones who are complaining about smokers??? And speaking of nose from ranges... People living a bit less than a mile away from
our club range had the E.P.A. monitor the sound of shooting in a attempt to close us down. Luckily while monitoring, a private Lear
Jet took off from a nearby airport and over their heads. They just
packed up and left with their equiptment. Just who in hell are we
to critize??? Everyone is anti-something in this new day and age.
Me? I am anti-anti.
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Addicts get angry fast when something comes between them and the substance. Their easy willingness to give up friends or businesses that interfere with the habit is only textbook symptomology of the addiction -- but sadly the addict can't see that his willingness to abandon friends and longtime favorite businesses when smoking becomes an issue PROVES they're addicted to something that has become more important to them than their friends, their favorite businesses, etc. When did a burning dried weed become more important than one's friends?
It's not about personal freedom when you're in a public place. Now, listen, I'm trying to say this without a scintilla of emotion: I don't mind whether someone smokes, farts, or sings square dance tunes at the top of their lungs. But your rights end where mine begin, in shared space. Mine end where yours begin. Each of us has our own set of valid boundaries. Unfortunately, I don't think we fully understand what a "public place" is -- how shared space differs from private space. For one thing, noise ordinances are about everyone's rights in shared space. So are smoking ordinances. Only the details differ.
It should not be about getting all PO'ed when someone mentions the word smoking in the wrong tone of voice. It should be about respecting each other's rights. I used to smoke. Glad I'm free of it. But I never liked smoke while I eat, for example, from me or anyone. But you know what? I know, having smoked, why this isn't an issue for smokers -- they can't smell anything normally. Ah, the amazing taste of food after you've stopped smoking for a bit. How did I ever get along without it? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot -- the addiction drowns out everything else. If smoking ruins the taste of my food -- it may ruin the taste of yours that much more.
Your rights end where mine begin. Ordinances became necessary because people with a bad habit cannot, or will not, refrain from lighting up when the addiction says "smoke." There are plenty of smokers who CANNOT physically abstain long enough, by stopwatch, to sit down and enjoy a meal and a conversation. The addiction, sooner or later, sends electric shocks through the body saying "smoke! Smoke!" And the smoker responds. He holds back with difficulty, and sometimes irritability. How many of you smokers have reached for a ciggie automatically just from the stress of reading this so far?
If you can't obey the rules of the house, YOU must go elsewhere, particularly when the habit is a proven public health hazard. I just hope you don't go home and abuse your kids with second-hand smoke before they are old enough to make up their own minds. Heck, you might even be predisposing them to become smokers by having to breathe it at an early age, like crack babies. Could happen. Now, that is not an inflammatory thought -- but it may seem that way to a smoker.
There is no way to make a statement about smoking with any wind in its sails that will not anger most smokers. If you have the impulse to leave this board altogether while reading the opposing arguments, by the way, congratulations -- You've got a bad case of tobacco addiction.... [xx(][;)]
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Therefore smoking is a health hazard to anyone around a smoker.
So by smoking you are hurting others in your vicinty.
Im curious how thats your freedom.
I have always felt, that if you are in a situation that you are not happy with, you leave. Everybody has rights, and one persons rights might be in contradiction with another. What do I do when in a place where people are doing things that I do not approve of, or bother me? I leave-it is that simple. It amazes me that people cant realize that they can not always be pleased with their surroundings, especially when going to places that the public frequents. Whether its smoking, or any other behavior, I could not imagine walking up to someone, and expect them to curtail their behavior because it bothers me. You are around the public, you have to deal with behavior you do not like. And if the behavior bothers you that much, then leave.
I hate when I go to a restuarant, and they have the music blaring. I cant stand music played at ear splitting decibels. I guess most of you would go up to the manger, complain that you do not like the music so loud, and request that he turn it down. I would never do that.
I would finish my meal, or go somewhere else. I realize that I may not like loud music, but a hell of a lot of people in the restaurant obviuously do, and I have no business asking them to opress their enjoyment. Bottom line, if the loud music was a problem with the customers THE OWNERS would turn the music down-but it is obvious the people who frequent the establishment like loud music, so the owners are not going to turn the music down. AND I SURE AS HELL DONT WANT NO LAW BY A GOVERNMENT PROHIBITING MUSIC IN SO CALLED PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENTS!
If enough people are bothered by the smoke, and stop atttending a smoking establishment, the owners would have to prohibit smoking-it would be a necessary business decision. And I am fine with that. I do not think I have a RIGHT to smoke anywhere I please. If I am in a non smoking restaurant, I would not demand that my right to smoke must be honored.
If I am hanging out with non smoking friends, I do not light up, contrary to Offerors opinion that smokers automatically abandon their friends for the sweet leaf._ I just think we should me more respectful of the rights of these establishments to run their business as they please, and not have big brother tell them what they can and cant do in their establishments-their PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENTS
A public place is a place the PUBLIC pays for. A private place is a place where the bills are paid for by individuals(s) AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Let the people who are paying the bills and running the business decide what is best for their business.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
Remember Clarence Thomas supreme court nomination? He was being called to the carpet by Ted Kennedy, because Thomas had at one time said there is never an excuse for going to school with dirty drawes. Ted was furious. It went something like:
"Well ehat if they can only afford one pair of drawes?"
"Then you should wash your drawes every night."
"Well what if you dont have hot water?"
"Well you can boil water."
Well what if you do not have running water?"
"You can go to the closest stream, boil water, and wash your drawes in that way."
Every problem has a solution.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
Smoking has been proven to be a medical problem, and second hand smoke is also proven to be harmful. Smoking is on its way out of society, just stop smoking and you'll be around long enough to see it. This isn't about "rights", it is about proven medical facts.
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
Want to know why?
If you were sitting at work and the guy next to you had some dirty broken glass and was cutting his flesh with it would you be disgusted at the individual?
Of course you would. Smokers do the same thing basically, except they pay alot of money to destroy thier health and annoy the people around them in the process. Makes no sense, but people do it.
Dumb.
And by the way, the studies I have read disprove the second hand smoke myth- Most studies do. A handful of studies say it is harmful. And even if it is harmful(though most studies say it isnt), no one is being forced to endure second hand smoke-if you are that worried, you can always leave harms way.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
Dumb & deadly but very enjoyable. I like to blow smoke rings. Infact you might say I'm hooked on them. The thing is you need a place where there is not much wind. I find nightclubs & restrurants work the best. [:o)]
I think the tobacco companies should voluntarily stop selling cigarettes to NY City all together. Mayor would loose millions in taxes & the people going through withdrawel would start rioting.
Regards,
FREE IRAQ
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
I do like your comments on the cigarette taxes. It would be neat to see what city and state governments would do if their income were curtailed as a result of no sales of cigarettes over the course of two or three years. Certainly would have budget crises in many areas.....might have a healthy country afterwards if the smokers in boycotting cigarettes lost their interest in tobacco. I think I really would like to see that because then the non-smokers could help out with the ramifications of no tobacco tax. Beach
I would think this would be two to one on the expenses of medicial conditions. And a large part would be unrecoverable expenses that the public pays, that are not covered by insurance.
Again I think this is a medical issue, and not a rights issue.
What do you think?
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
I would be very interested to see the numbers on what the income is on these cigarette taxes, and what the costs are on the backside with medical costs for lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, and the copious other conditions brought on by this habit.
I would think this would be two to one on the expenses of medicial conditions. And a large part would be unrecoverable expenses that the public pays, that are not covered by insurance.
Again I think this is a medical issue, and not a rights issue.
What do you think?
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
Well now you are getting into the issue of state sponsored health care-which I just assume the states stay out of the health care business, and allow individuals and insurance companies to cover everyone. If an insurance company refuses to cover a smoker, than so be it.
And if you think that smokers are more of a burden to the state because of their habvit, remember that smokers do not live as long, and so are a burden to the state for a lessor time than all those healthy non smokers who live into their 80s and 90s/
A smoker who dies in his seventies is less of a burden to the state than a healthy non smoker who lives into their 90s.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
THe state should prohibit fatty foods from being served in restaurants. And pasta, nothing good about that.All that fatty food and pasta creates health problems, which are passed on to the public when they have to foot the medical bills for these over indulgers. And that loud music? Studies show that more people go deaf today than in the past, due to the fact that people use headphones, and listen to music and radio at much higher decibels than yesterday-might as well get the state in there to prohibit music in restaurants.
How bout drinking? Many people die from complications due to heave alcohol intake, and many "innocent" victims die as a result of someone exercising their right to drink-states mine as well prohibit drinking in restaurants.
How about meeting someone in a bar? Many people contract STDs from people they meet in bars or restaurants-for health reasons, might as well make it illegal to pick up other people in an eating/drinking establishment. Yup you all are right. The state should decide these "health" issues for us-they really know what is best-freedom to live your life or run your business as you see fit be damned.
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington
Proprietors voluntarily buy into public-oriented businesses with their eyes open. As has been pointed out, ABC licenses bars, and the city decides who gets a license and in what neighborhoods.
The BATF licenses dealers, and they and the city and state together decide who gets a license, and in what zone, in what part of town, etc.
Girlie bars have similar restrictions on alcohol as well as the local community standard for lewd behavior, even though these activities all take place inside a building on the owner's private property.
Patrons may be tossed out, legally, for a variety of unacceptable behaviors in these places. If the other patrons or management can't stop the behavior, the police can even be called to enter the establishment and remove the offender.
All these businesses, privately owned, still must adhere to public policy. Unless, of course, you enjoy sitting in your castle by yourself; then I assume you can pretty much do what you want, if you keep the door locked. But as soon as you unlock the door, and invite the public into your domain, boom. The people have rights, even when standing on your floors.
One difference between these various businesses of course is, guns are NOT inherently dangerous. They are inert and useful until misused. Folks who walk into a shop off the street, though, must pass a short test before they can buy one.
Alcohol is only dangerous to that unknown segment of the population who will react to it with a craving and an increasingly bad case of alcoholism. People must show ID to get a drink, and may be cut off or asked to go if they drink to excess.
Cigarettes are inert too, until you light them, but smoke, and second-hand smoke, have been proven dangerous to most people, with occasional exceptions who seem to last a long time even though they smoke daily.
The point is pretty clear. Guns are a rights issue (at least WE believe they are); alcohol is a rights issue unless it becomes a public health hazard (illegal drugs are a public health and crime issue) -- and cigarettes are now primarily a public health issue, when smoked in public -- even when smoked by private individuals -- because smoke travels.
If 35 state economies crunch when cigs go down -- hey, they'll get over it.
As for Frank Zappa -- he's dead. Saw him perform once in an L.A. club -- he and Dweezil were great. He died too young. Still, I don't object to his smoking choice -- unless he insisted on doing it in prohibited public places (!)
I wrote a letter to the editor when the Fort Wayne ordinance was passed requiring a separate smoking room in restaurants if smoking was to be allowed -- and smokers were yelling that they wouldn't go into a non-smoking restaurant and that their favorite small restaurants which couldn't be divided would all go under. In the first place, if that were true, the smokers were putting them under by refusing to go in there and eat while abstaining for an hour. In the second place, I said that sometimes in life, people are unwilling to get vital health care for one reason or another, especially addicts. And when it happens, sometimes that means driving a combative patient to the hospital against his will; and sometimes it means we all have a smoke-free place to eat.
The trouble with the worst smokers is they "welcome" anyone who doesn't like it to leave; we, on the other hand, would not be thoughtless enough to "welcome" the smoker to leave -- we often like them; we simply ask him or her to obey the law and not light up in a public space.
It's not a question of who has to leave, is it? -- except in the mind of a stubborn smoker, I guess. The power of smoking overrides the third option occuring to them -- stay, and don't light up; then I don't have to leave, and we can enjoy our company. That's strange, to put it mildly. I go back to the concept that one person's rights end precisely where another's begin, and in public, that does not include the necessity for someone to leave.
You really have to ask about the mindset that thinks about "go away" as a solution, in a social setting whose whole point is to be with other people and have a good time, rather than home alone. How is it that the concept of "leaving" pops into the mind so easily as some sort of an "answer"? In reality, people are not that disposable. Is this the teflon-coated species of smoker, smokerantus teflonicus, the one to whom real people are optional compared to Messrs. Benson & Hedges?
What does that mean, "You are WELCOME to go elsewhere." A very unwelcoming use of the word "welcome," in my view, and so, very ironic.
Okay, now I'll say everyone is entitled to his opinion, but please don't expect to break the law and have no one speak up. Cigarette smoke speaks very loudly when it wafts over the "Thank you for not Smoking" sign. (A sign, by the way, that some nicotine addicts find irritating and condescending -- because there is no polite way, in their view, to say "No smoking.")
I'm tempted to blow this all away, but I spent too much time on it. Please forgive me my excesses. [;)]
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."