should we ban cigarette smoking....
a link
why isn't cigarette smoking illegal if mary jane smoking is...anyway, if we can cut medical bills, cut social security payments to families who lose a parent at an early age, cut the number of children with asthma, etc etc, then why aren't we doing this??
probably easy for me to ask, nobody in my family smokes (well two did, but they are both dead now from it...one emphysema, one heart attack)...how did we every manage to pick and choose what is legal and what is not??
i say un-ban gay marriage
and ban public smoking (you could still smoke at home...and smoke anything you want...just no smoking at work, at schools, at church, at the park, at the zoo, no "designated smoking areas" etc...no smoking anyplace but your house and your yard
the world would be healthier and happier
g
edit: ps...before rants of "this is america, land of the free", remember that we ban lots of things in public (some with very little reasoning behind it, at least smoking has health concerns)...no public nudity is a silly one that comes to mind (no public spitting was a law when TB was very common...also for health reasons)...can we think of some more??
why isn't cigarette smoking illegal if mary jane smoking is...anyway, if we can cut medical bills, cut social security payments to families who lose a parent at an early age, cut the number of children with asthma, etc etc, then why aren't we doing this??
probably easy for me to ask, nobody in my family smokes (well two did, but they are both dead now from it...one emphysema, one heart attack)...how did we every manage to pick and choose what is legal and what is not??
i say un-ban gay marriage
and ban public smoking (you could still smoke at home...and smoke anything you want...just no smoking at work, at schools, at church, at the park, at the zoo, no "designated smoking areas" etc...no smoking anyplace but your house and your yard
the world would be healthier and happier
g
edit: ps...before rants of "this is america, land of the free", remember that we ban lots of things in public (some with very little reasoning behind it, at least smoking has health concerns)...no public nudity is a silly one that comes to mind (no public spitting was a law when TB was very common...also for health reasons)...can we think of some more??
Comments
Since we are just asserting what we like, I figured I toss in two cents.
Nick
2. we outlaw lots of stuff and it never works...like marijuana, like underage drinking, underage smoking, underage sex.... etc
you just have to do it at home...like sex, like nudity, like lots of things...you are free to smoke all you want at home, on your property, at a friends house if he/she lets you...and that's it...no work places, no public places, only at home/homes and the land you own
g
Originally posted by thegelding
1. smoking would not be outlawed
2. we outlaw lots of stuff and it never works...like marijuana, like underage drinking, underage smoking, underage sex.... etc
you just have to do it at home...like sex, like nudity, like lots of things...you are free to smoke all you want at home, on your property, at a friends house if he/she lets you...and that's it...no work places, no public places, only at home/homes and the land you own
g
It isn't so much that those things are "legal" at home but that the state isn't allowed to barge in and see if you are doing them. Simply ban smoking and then if you do it in the privacy of your home, the state can't barge in and see, just like with drinking, pot, etc.
Also wasn't it you (memory fails me) who posted that smoking could be used to determine custody? Obviously then it really wouldn't matter what was done in the privacy of your home since the courts could question you about it, and remove your children because of this habit.
Amazing how the courts will shred the Constitution in an instant though when it is "for the children."
Nick
personally i don't care if people smoke or not...(though the health concerns are real)
just find the lastest study interesting
and wonder why some things are legal and some things are illegal
and why we care what humans do at home
g
Originally posted by trumptman
I say ban smoking, and stop linking a non-genetic behavior to civil rights issues that are genetic.
Since we are just asserting what we like, I figured I toss in two cents.
Nick
What a dick-head thing to say. Why don't comments like the one I've quoted get people banned? I'm throughly confused and disappointed by the 'guidelines'.
Originally posted by bunge
What a dick-head thing to say. Why don't comments like the one I've quoted get people banned? I'm throughly confused and disappointed by the 'guidelines'.
Those same guidelines would frown upon you saying trumpet's comments were "dick-head" thing[s] to say." If it's good for the goose...
Originally posted by thegelding
personally i don't care if people smoke or not...(though the health concerns are real)
I think we would be wrong to ban smoking, but completely correct to ban the sale of tobacco. At least mass produced filtered pre-rolled cigarettes. The problem isn't that some people smoke, but that a gigantic ecomony exists to kill people. That's not a good thing.
So, why let companies profit from it? Don't. But don't take away an individual's right to smoke tobacco, or pot for that matter. Or eating peyote, or rollerblading.
Originally posted by bunge
What a dick-head thing to say. Why don't comments like the one I've quoted get people banned? I'm throughly confused and disappointed by the 'guidelines'.
Obviously you didn't read the first post carefully.
i say un-ban gay marriage and ban public smoking
I just added my thoughts on the exact same two subjects he posted about in this little thing I like to call a reply.
Last time I checked if you posted on a topic, and I replied on the same topic, that wasn't a "dick-head" thing to do. I didn't call names, insult him, or anything else.
Stop jerking that knee so hard. You'll hurt yourself.
Nick
<lights one up> "For the Children"
...everywhere.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
BAN SM
...everywhere.
It's the start of another one of those EEEEVIIILLL agreement alliances...
Smoking should be gone. It doesn't matter the history, the revenues, the anything else. Slavery once made economic sense to some and also was an engrained lifestyle. It's already been shown that the greedy government is doing nothing with regard to helping smokers stop with the tobacco settlement money. Simply ban it.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I think we would be wrong to ban smoking, but completely correct to ban the sale of tobacco. At least mass produced filtered pre-rolled cigarettes. The problem isn't that some people smoke, but that a gigantic ecomony exists to kill people. That's not a good thing.
So, why let companies profit from it? Don't. But don't take away an individual's right to smoke tobacco, or pot for that matter. Or eating peyote, or rollerblading.
I don't think we should ban guns, just bullets.
I don't think we should ban free speech, just the ability to breath out while vibrating your vocal chords.
Don't be a coward! All stances like this lead to are confusion because the twisted thinking behind it can never lead to real enforcement of anything.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Don't be a coward! All stances like this lead to are confusion because the twisted thinking behind it can never lead to real enforcement of anything.
You're not making sense. Twisted thinking? Real enforcement? Feel free to expand on your ideas but your analogies aren't accurate. I didn't say 'let people smoke but ban matches and lighters.'
Let people smoke. If you find a company selling mass produced smokes shut them down. What's the big deal? That makes much more sense than trying to control the actions of every individual. It also makes more Constitutional sense. It's far easier to legislate against a few companies than it is to attack individuals.
My biggest problem with smoking isn't the cigarettes, it's the mass production of tobacco. It's one of the worst crops for the soil and brings the least amout of good with it. Stop that and all's good in my book.
Nicotine is as addictive as opiates, and addicts will go to extreme lengths to obtain tobacco....banning it would be a law enforcement nightmare. As Scott pointed out, (alcohol) prohibition was a farce, and similarly the "war on drugs" is an abject failure.
At the same time, prohibit smoking in all public places. Smokers could still relieve their addiction outdoors or at home without breaking the law, and the public would finally have the freedom to breathe the air that the lungs were designed to accommodate, rather than having to be forced to take in the noxious fumes from others' habits.
The only postive, unintended consequence I could see as a result of this, is that a lot of narcotics dealers would start dealing cigarettes instead. As bad as they are, cigarettes are preferable to say crack or heroine in that regard. Only barely preferable to dealing weed.
It is safe to say that we are all aware of the dangers of a life time of heavy smoking and we continue to do it, so why bother banning cigs and cig manufactures? The demand is there, let them supply it.
A smoking-related death and disease have been surpassed by those related to obesity. SO isn't it about time we stopped turning smokers into lepers and started picking on the fat people and the death-peddling fast food industry that feeds them?
What about in your car with the windows open, is that "public"? Or the parking lot of a huge office plaza... nothing but cars out there? Parking garages? What about Main Street USA... 9pm on a weeknight, taking a walk. No smokes for Mrs. Applebee?
You try to make an all-out public ban, and it's tantamount to making it illegal in many smokers' eyes. There will be frivolous lawsuits out the ying-yang.
but no public smoking...just like no public nudity...if you can't be nude there, you can't smoke there...simple equation...so no to offices, restaurants, bars etc,
yes to strip clubs and i guess gay bath houses
so smoking only at your home and on your property...inside your car is ok...i've been nude there often
g