Uh, I must've missed the nude analogy. However, it still doesn't hold true in various instances. Also, what the difference between a "ban in public places" and "smoking is illegal in public places", precisely? Who is enforcing this "ban", might be another way to put it. Maybe I've missed more than just the nekkid people.
8) 8)
Whatever the case, people are a lot more forgiving of nudity in various public spaces than smoking -- even now. The usual result of someone who gets caught in the nude (just ordinary people, not flashers or pervs exposing themselves), is that they get laughed at (one way or another).
People rarely if ever will get law enforcement involved in situations like those. More likely they pull out a camera than a phone. Lets go back to the example of an apartment rooftop, where if the average person stumled upon a nude sunbather or partially disrobed couple having fun, they would most likely do nothing beyond saying "get a room" or "there are little kids in this building, blah blah".
However with smoking -- which people take very personally even now -- I can very easily see some smoke nazi types getting the building super or the cops involved (IF smoking was known to be banned in all public spaces). Which is really my point: it's a lot harder to define the "public space" than people here seem to think. There's plenty-o-grea-area... and plenty of room for ensuing conflict, phsyical and otherwise.
You'll start seeing "you can have my cigerette when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers" bumper stickers (which is kind of ironic, but you get my point).
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.
Hahahaha, you prove my point. When you really don't endorse something then don't endorse it.
We can discuss what would be the most accurate representation of your view but the point really is that it shows how ridiculous it is to try to endorse/not endorse something at the same time. Smoking is legal but not the selling of cigarettes, or the making of them, well them more accurately the lighters, etc.
The point is that no matter what, you are trying to control individual behavior. You make it come down to a decision of who to prosecute for breaking the law (corporate vs. individual) but it really is that way now. The corporations are being sued out of existance and the people aren't being told they can't smoke, just wear and how.
Keep smoking legal. Criminalizing it would only create a new source of income for organized crime/Mafia, while the justice system would be more overburdened with thousands of cases of tobacco possession, intent to supply etc....
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.
I could live with that. Sounds good to me. Sounds pretty much like California in most regards.
I fully support a smoking ban in and around public buildings, because people do not have a choice whether or not they go there. On the street there aren't enough smokers to be a nuisance.
Smoking/non-smoking in bars and other private establishments should be resolved by the owners, because people can choose not to patronize them or work there.
That said, as long as my freedom is limited by having to pay for public healthcare, I think it's also reasonable that other people's freedom is limited in a way that prevents their racking up the healthcare bills, unless the extra taxes smokers pay are enough to cover their extra health expenses.
Smoking/non-smoking in bars and other private establishments should be resolved by the owners, because people can choose not to patronize them or work there.
Hey, we gotta work somewhere. Sometimes restaurants/bars are the only places you can get a job that pays enough.
Hey, we gotta work somewhere. Sometimes restaurants/bars are the only places you can get a job that pays enough.
The ban in Ireland is basically for employees. Just like you can't have employees working in hazardous environments, you can't allow smoking where you have employees.
Gum should take its place...breath smells good, clean teeth (if sugarless), not *actually* addictive, low in calories and carbs.
Wouldnt it be wild if it came out that Wrigley's was duping the American public for years, gum actually causes tumors and blindness from its artificial sweetners and shit? haha, i wouldnt be surprised...I love Orbit's Bubblemint and Wrigley's Polar Ice!8)
Then ban driving. Not commercial or public transportation. I mean the people who get in their SUV and drive a block down the street to get a Slurpee at the 7-11.
Get off your fat ass and walk for a change. You're going to kill yourself and others you know...fat asshats.
BAN FAT! BAN 7-11! BAN TGIFRIDAYS! BAN GAS! BAN WAL-MART!
People always say how much of our tax money goes to supporting those with lung disease or whatever. However, if someone dies at 60, that is 25 years of Social Security payments that I don't have to foot part of the bill for. So smoke, die young, and save me money.
People always say how much of our tax money goes to supporting those with lung disease or whatever. However, if someone dies at 60, that is 25 years of Social Security payments that I don't have to foot part of the bill for. So smoke, die young, and save me money.
You can't equate driving, eating bad food, etc. to smoking.
Regular smoking, in itself, is a consistent and intentional use of a product that has NO redeeming value, and has been consistently shown to have negative effects up to and including death. It is a DIRECT cause of diseases that lead to death. You can't sugar coat it in any way, shape, or form.
Were it not for the aforementioned taxes to the government and stimulation to the economy, smoking would have been banned long ago. I can think of no other product that society has so irresponsibly and blatantly allowed to continue to be sold, regardless of how consistently and irrefutably damaging it is.
Comments
8) 8)
Whatever the case, people are a lot more forgiving of nudity in various public spaces than smoking -- even now. The usual result of someone who gets caught in the nude (just ordinary people, not flashers or pervs exposing themselves), is that they get laughed at (one way or another).
People rarely if ever will get law enforcement involved in situations like those. More likely they pull out a camera than a phone. Lets go back to the example of an apartment rooftop, where if the average person stumled upon a nude sunbather or partially disrobed couple having fun, they would most likely do nothing beyond saying "get a room" or "there are little kids in this building, blah blah".
However with smoking -- which people take very personally even now -- I can very easily see some smoke nazi types getting the building super or the cops involved (IF smoking was known to be banned in all public spaces). Which is really my point: it's a lot harder to define the "public space" than people here seem to think. There's plenty-o-grea-area... and plenty of room for ensuing conflict, phsyical and otherwise.
You'll start seeing "you can have my cigerette when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers" bumper stickers (which is kind of ironic, but you get my point).
Originally posted by bunge
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.
Hahahaha, you prove my point. When you really don't endorse something then don't endorse it.
We can discuss what would be the most accurate representation of your view but the point really is that it shows how ridiculous it is to try to endorse/not endorse something at the same time. Smoking is legal but not the selling of cigarettes, or the making of them, well them more accurately the lighters, etc.
The point is that no matter what, you are trying to control individual behavior. You make it come down to a decision of who to prosecute for breaking the law (corporate vs. individual) but it really is that way now. The corporations are being sued out of existance and the people aren't being told they can't smoke, just wear and how.
It becomes a farce. It should be just be gone.
Nick
Originally posted by sammi jo
Keep smoking legal. Criminalizing it would only create a new source of income for organized crime/Mafia, while the justice system would be more overburdened with thousands of cases of tobacco possession, intent to supply etc....
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.
I could live with that. Sounds good to me. Sounds pretty much like California in most regards.
Nick
Smoking/non-smoking in bars and other private establishments should be resolved by the owners, because people can choose not to patronize them or work there.
That said, as long as my freedom is limited by having to pay for public healthcare, I think it's also reasonable that other people's freedom is limited in a way that prevents their racking up the healthcare bills, unless the extra taxes smokers pay are enough to cover their extra health expenses.
Originally posted by Gon
Smoking/non-smoking in bars and other private establishments should be resolved by the owners, because people can choose not to patronize them or work there.
Hey, we gotta work somewhere. Sometimes restaurants/bars are the only places you can get a job that pays enough.
Originally posted by Whisper
Hey, we gotta work somewhere. Sometimes restaurants/bars are the only places you can get a job that pays enough.
The ban in Ireland is basically for employees. Just like you can't have employees working in hazardous environments, you can't allow smoking where you have employees.
Good enough for you Moogs?
Originally posted by trumptman
The point is that no matter what, you are trying to control individual behavior.
What a bunch of crap that is. I'm simply trying to keep the planet from dying.
Originally posted by bunge
What a bunch of crap that is. I'm simply trying to keep the planet from dying.
.. the whole planet? Good luck with that...
Originally posted by Jubelum
.. the whole planet? Good luck with that...
If at first you don't succeed....
Originally posted by bunge
If at first you don't succeed....
I admire your ambition.
Originally posted by bunge
What a bunch of crap that is. I'm simply trying to keep the planet from dying.
I didn't know the planet had taken up smoking.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't know the planet had taken up smoking.
Nick
HAHA!
Bunge, the planet has been ravaged by asteroids and lava flows the size of continents. I think it can survive a little second hand smoke.
"The planet's gonna be fine... it's the humans that are fscked"
Originally posted by Jubelum
I admire your ambition.
lol!
Wouldnt it be wild if it came out that Wrigley's was duping the American public for years, gum actually causes tumors and blindness from its artificial sweetners and shit? haha, i wouldnt be surprised...I love Orbit's Bubblemint and Wrigley's Polar Ice!8)
Then ban driving. Not commercial or public transportation. I mean the people who get in their SUV and drive a block down the street to get a Slurpee at the 7-11.
Get off your fat ass and walk for a change. You're going to kill yourself and others you know...fat asshats.
BAN FAT! BAN 7-11! BAN TGIFRIDAYS! BAN GAS! BAN WAL-MART!
All I got...
/
Originally posted by progmac
People always say how much of our tax money goes to supporting those with lung disease or whatever. However, if someone dies at 60, that is 25 years of Social Security payments that I don't have to foot part of the bill for. So smoke, die young, and save me money.
Regular smoking, in itself, is a consistent and intentional use of a product that has NO redeeming value, and has been consistently shown to have negative effects up to and including death. It is a DIRECT cause of diseases that lead to death. You can't sugar coat it in any way, shape, or form.
Were it not for the aforementioned taxes to the government and stimulation to the economy, smoking would have been banned long ago. I can think of no other product that society has so irresponsibly and blatantly allowed to continue to be sold, regardless of how consistently and irrefutably damaging it is.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
You can't equate driving, eating bad food, etc. to smoking.
HUH?
Jeez, I'm going to sleep. Goodnight fat people and their children everywhere...