Health Care: Smoking ban!

[joshdvm]

Seriously, why are we examining this here? For entertainment (my bloodpressure allowing) I follow the sad products of government schooling waste tons of bandwidth mulling over and over the same idiotic arguments on my city's local discussion board over, what in a halfway sane world, would never become an issue in the first place. But they have an excuse for being ignorant. C'mon, everyone here should know better.

 

[Dutchie]

if cigarette companies didn't design cigarettes to be super addictive, i could care less. for me, i agree you should be free to smoke or not smoke, but considering the addictive nature of nicotine, once you start you can't just stop. that is more the question of freedom in this issue.

besides the fact that second hand smoke can be unpleasant, and i now rather enjoy coming home from a club without my clothes smelling like an ashtray.

 

[Madcat455]

Funny thing about the FL ban... I did some digging, and I wonder if RP would actually approve.

FL made the ban part of it's constitution, and the amendment was passed "Overwhelmingly" by VOTERS.... Not the big bad Gov, but the PEOPLE.

Like I said... I couldn't care less about what other people do with thier bodies, property, etc. But once it starts to impose itself on ME.... then it's becomes my business.

I'm no "Health Nut"... I eat WAY too much candy, drink WAY too much Soda.... but the day that those actions start making YOU fat.. I'll restrict it to my own private areas.

If smokers would've simply been respectful to the other non-smokers... we woud not have had this issue... If they would've just looked around the joint(pardon the pun) and said "Well, I can wait a bit to light up since there's alot of non smokers around me".... then ALL WOULD BE GOOD.

BUT NO!!!! We had to sit through them all puffing that s@!T into the area where we are trying to enjoy ourselves as well. Hence the public voting by and large FOR the ban.

BTW... I'd be all for a completley enclosed, seperated area for smokers as well.

 

[Sauron]

Smoking bans lead to food bans. The former has been successfully imposed, now work has begun on the latter.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

Ron Paul stands for protecting all innocents and a smoke ban would improve the protection of all innocents both born and unborn. What do you think?

You do not have to enter an establishment or enclosed space that permits smoking.

As an owner of a restaurant and you see a father(smoker) walking in your restaurant and in his hands three children. What would you do? Would you ask him to leave his children in the car? Or would you ask him to have a seat on the non-smoking side?
I think if you fail to do any of these, then we better ban smoking!

 

[Loke]

Originally Posted by VoteForRonPaul
Ron Paul stands for protecting all innocents and a smoke ban would improve the protection of all innocents both born and unborn. What do you think?

I think you're logic is absurd!

It's just another law. IF a restaurant doesn't want to have smokers in it, then it should be up to them to make a "no smoking" establishment. If they want to capture a variety of customers(then a enclosed smoking section) or free to smoke establishment is their business.
This notion that we need to save people or tell them what to do with their children , good or not, does NOT run with a free society/goes against individual liberty.

Don't put words in the good Doctor's mouth because you wish it to be that way.

BTW I don't smoke. Cigarettes clog up my sinuses and irritate my eyes and congest my breathing. I HATE THEM!

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

BTW I don't smoke. Cigarettes clog up my sinuses and irritate my eyes and congest my breathing. I HATE THEM!

I do not believe you speak the truth here.

This notion that we need to save people or tell them what to do with their children , good or not, does NOT run with a free society/goes against individual liberty.

You have no logic here at all, logic claimer!
Ron Paul is a pro-life if you do not know and statistics shows that thousands and thousands of children die every year(get killed) because of negative smoking. What kind of free society you are talking about. It would be a jungle if we follow you!
The government has to have a role of regulation and Ron Paul never deny this role.

 

[LukeNM]

I smoke, and I have always tried to be considerate and respectful of others and tried not to offend anyone with my smoking. I try not to give smokers a bad name. I do not need the government to tell me how to use common sense.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

I smoke, and I have always tried to be considerate and respectful of others and tried not to offend anyone with my smoking. I try not to give smokers a bad name. I do not need the government to tell me how to use common sense.

The problem of the common logic which I have seen in this topic is that this logic assumes that non-smokers are the ones who have to avoid the smokers but on the other hand they fail to address the responsibility of smokers. Smokers have all the right to smoke in your face and if you do not agree you are blamed that you did not avoid them, I see this so ridiculous kind of logic. As somebody said earlier in this topic, smokers fail to regulate themselves . And in free society if they fail to regulate themselves then we have to ask somebody else to regulate this issue. And this "else" is the government, the state or whatever.

I see many people are taking RP's message very far away from what he intends to do. Ron Paul does not intend to trash the government. It has to have a role!
We all heard about the last national Pet recall. What happened happened because the government failed to play the role which she should be playing in first place. And this role is to protect us. And as Ron Paul say that the role of the government is to protect our civil liberties it should also play a role in protecting us from those who want to deliver the consumers with poisons. It has to have a role but how big or small this role that what needs to be debated.

 

[Antialiased]

... statistics shows that thousands and thousands of children die every year(get killed) because of negative smoking. ...

Why then, if it is provable that a child died as a result of another person's smoking, the state government could simply prosecute the smoker who caused the child's death for homicide. See, no smoking ban needed after all.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

<sarcasm on>

I should be able to carry my boombox with me at all times, turned up to 11, playing Metallica..."And Justice for All"... it's my right...if you don't like it, you can leave...

Oh yeah, I can blow smoke in your face too...if you don't like that, you can leave too...

<sarcasm off>

 

[Loke]

I do not believe you speak the truth here.


You have no logic here at all, logic claimer!
Ron Paul is a pro-life if you do not know and statistics shows that thousands and thousands of children die every year(get killed) because of negative smoking. What kind of free society you are talking about. It would be a jungle if we follow you!
The government has to have a role of regulation and Ron Paul never deny this role.

You don't believe I'm telling the truth? About not smoking? WTF??? I came here to lie about that???

I don't like what you said and I don't think you are being truthful with yourself: It doesn't necessarily mean you are lying about things here. But if the shoe happens to fit, you just go ahead and wear the damn thing!


I'm pro-life! I despise women who smoke while they are pregnant. I have no respect for people who smoke around kids!!! I have no respect for women who eat shitty food and don't take care of themselves while pregnant. I hate cigarette smoke more than I can describe!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was getting into argument/fights with people long before smoking bans were even talked about for asking people not to smoke. Back when people would tell everybody what and asshole you were for telling them they couldn't smoke in your house. I'm 42 y/o an ashtray's were as much an accessory for most people's homes as they were a functioning item.

Sorry to tell you buddy, but not everybody thinks like you do! But I DO think you are a communist pig dressed in Ron Paul clothing!

One last time. I don't smoke and I can't stand CIGARETTE SMOKE!!!!!!!!!! I don't allow cigarettes to be smoked in my car, my house, anywhere around my child and in fact don't visit the few friend that smoke.
Rarely I will suffer through events/places where there is smoke. I always bitch about it and it always bothers me to greater or lesser degrees.

When I first got with my wife 8 years ago she smoked. I wouldn't let her smoke in my car or my house. I wouldn't even kiss her unless she brushed her teeth. We got in numerous fights about it and it was almost a splitting up point. Then she got pregnant and QUIT!! I would've had no respect for her. She still doesn't smoke. It is not impossible to quit as many other drugs aren't . Some people are weak. Weak in mind , weak in body or both.


Now... with all that. I do NOT feel the government(local of federal) has ANY right to tell business owners *or anybody else* whether or not they can allow smoking in their establishment!!! GEt over it punk!

ps. I like your 'what about he children' argument. Always comes down to that from the people that want to control you, " It's about he children". When you wish to infringe your belief system on others, it's time to break out how children die unless they do what you think is right huh!

 

[Loke]

I should be able to carry my boombox with me at all times, turned up to 11, playing Metallica..."And Justice for All"... it's my right...if you don't like it, you can leave...

Oh yeah, I can blow smoke in your face too...if you don't like that, you can leave too...

I don't know if you're being sarcastic. But one thing you're forgetting is; You can pull all kinds of inconsiderate stunts. But there are repercussions.

In case you are being sarcastic:
There doesn't need to be a law to tell people not to be assholes. Which is what your talking about. Most people who do things like this go running right the law to protect them when they get the repercussions too. You can do your thing without being a punk about them.

 

[deehrler]

Smoking became popular at a time that people had bad hygiene. Then, your neighbor's smelly breath rolling over rotten teeth became blended with the exhaust of Virginia tobacco was welcomed. The smoking neighbor was not always pleased. Rotten body odor from underarms and crotches reeked from the walls. "They should smoke", the bewildered smoking visitor would think. Smoking became popular.

Now we have deodorants and dentists and the smoker has lost his cloak. Hiding in corners he is puffing and killing himself. It is an addictive habit. Time has come around.

Government can't do crap. Popular culture will kill it on its own.

 

[Citizen Warrior]

how could you even ask this question?

Smoking is none of ANY government's business. Not the federal, state, or local government!! It is up to the owner of the property! Jesus christ, wake up people. Dont expect the government to take care of you and run your life.

Amen to that observation!

CW

 

[driller80545]

I don't believe second hand smoke is harmful to anyone. I don't think there have ever been any studies done. I don't think smoke hurts the precious children. Car exhaust maybe. People who don't smoke love slinging fanatical propoganda with no basis in fact to support their preferences. I have been hearing about these big studies for years, but have never seen a real one. I just see people agreeing with what they already wanted to hear. I don't like complainers. I want to ban complainers. I am going to advertise some studies that I have been doing showing that complainers contribute more harm to the health of the children than second hand smoke does!

 

[Poltiical_Rebel]

State's have already made bans so just leave it to the states on this issue.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic. But one thing you're forgetting is; You can pull all kinds of inconsiderate stunts. But there are repercussions.

In case you are being sarcastic:
There doesn't need to be a law to tell people not to be assholes. Which is what your talking about. Most people who do things like this go running right the law to protect them when they get the repercussions too. You can do your thing without being a punk about them.

Sorry, that was a quick post. It was sarcasm.

Without the laws banning smoking (where there are those laws), it would still be going on in enclosed places. Smokers would never voluntarily stop smoking in restaurants, clubs, bars, grocery stores, etc. Even many smokers were happy when they found out how nice it was to get out of a cloud of smoke, but the first chance they get (say in another State), they light up again. It's an addiction.

Everyone has a right to put smoke in their own lungs. They don't have a right to put it in other people's lungs.

 

[Thanehand]

I'm a non smoker.

However, I have smoked a good cigar on certain special occasion (on my wedding day, when my niece was born), and the thought of not being able to bust one out for a special celebration with some of my friends just seems to fly in the face of what is great about being an American -- and yes, I am respectful to the fact that I'm not the only one around, and being conscious that I'm not smoking around anyone who would be bothered by it.

That said, the point is that if you ban smoking, it won't be limited to that alone. People will demand for the banning of many, many other things that they disagree with, and without the principle of letting people decide for themselves, arguments against further banning won't have much choice.

 

[Sauron]

Ron Paul is a pro-life if you do not know and statistics shows that thousands and thousands of children die every year(get killed) because of negative smoking.

Junk science. Here's the real evidence.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/preg.htm