Smoking

[Cephus]

Quote by: Imudman Of course I'm obligated to follow the law, just like you. Um, what does that have to do with your statement that leaseholders don't have property rights? Here's a little education for you: Since land isn't portable, what's really traded among people are certain rights running with the land. When you buy or rent a piece of property, all you're really getting is a collection of rights associated with the land. A buyer necessarily has more rights than a renter, since a renter can never rent more rights than those that are available from the owner.

That's kind of the point, I have said over and over that a leaseholder does not have the same rights as a property owner. That doesn't mean they have NO rights, it just means they have a very limited set of rights, mostly those granted by the owner of the property or by the state to ensure they owner doesn't screw over the leaseholder.

Smoking bans arbitrarily strip land owners and leaseholders alike of their right to control the environment within their establishments. You can't whitewash it away. According to your way of thinking, if enough people got together to vote for complete public ownership of all property then that would be ok. Welcome to Amerika, comrade...

Landowners do not have the right to have toxic waste dumps on their property (without permits), they can't do dangerous experiments, they cannot blow things up, etc. Just because you own or lease a property doesn't mean that you get to do whatever you want to on it.

Smoking is a public health hazard. Period. In a business that is open to the public, smoking is restricted. Period. If you want to have a smoking club, open only to members, called Cancer, feel free. I'm sure they'd be happy to sign a waver for your business and you can all smoke to your heart's delight, at least until your lungs implode.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8fulDaniel said:
Voluntary? Can a smoker not smoke, just stop cold? Speaking from personal experience, they owned me. I am aware not everybody is the same, but I couldnt just decide to not smoke, for a day or a week or even a few hours. I had lost the power of choice.

I say:
You have just clearly clarified why you should not experiment with drugs. You have trouble using your willpower, to find away around addiction. Even the most addictive drugs can be beaten, including Heroine, you just have to have the willpower, and good sense to seek to fix the problem while you are in your strongest times.

I was a smoker, 3 packs a day for 10 years. I was raised in a smoking home. I quit of my will, by using a NATURAL HERBAL substance to reduce chemical cravings. With the aid of reducing the chemical desire, I quit faily easily. I quit smoking for two years +, and I DID start back again, because I WANTED TO. I enjoy smoking, and I have made my own CHOICE to again risk the side effects.

People who quit drinking with Alcoholics Anonymous don't quit because of the program magicly working. They quit because first of all, THEY RECOGNIZE the need to quit, and seek AA for help. Then in conjunction with their willpower and their belief in the ABILITY to quit, they struggle through the withdrawls and the awkward social situations until they beat the monster down and regain control of their lives.

You are a slave to your weaknesses, don't blame the drug. You have not the willpower to raise yourself above the most important cop out..... the phrase "I can't".

If you don't believe you can do it, you won't. Everyone is different, but everyone knows the meaning of sacrifice and pain, and that is what it takes to beat chemical dependency. Either you MAKE yourself endure it, or you don't. Some people that "believe" require "spiritual" guidance to give them the strength, to each his own.

Am I denying the chemical dependency? NO!

Chemical dependency is a scientific process. It can be explained, it can be understood, it can be fixed. Mental weakness is much harder to overcome, but it can be, sometimes with the help of just a good friend you can trust, sometimes people must rely on a psychologist or psychiatrist, some rely on their belief in a God.

Once again Gr8ful, you have clearly expressed my whole problem with people who hold your point of view.

You don't trust yourselves, and in particular, don't trust yourselves not to eventually wreak mayhem or suicide if you were (armed, high, drunk or whatever you are against), and you project this insecurity onto other people.


Gr8fulDaniel said:
I didnt have the "Right to Smoke", just like a plantation negro doesnt "Have a Right" to pick cotton without pay and be beaten with a whip, and to have his children sold to other plantations. I doubt any of them were proud of this "choice" to come to America, and be owned by a cruel tyrant.

I say:
You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing a person who is being FORCED by another man to do his bidding, to a man not having control over his own faculties and cravings. If you can't control your cravings, maybe you can't control a craving for murder, if you were provoked. Maybe you are unstable? The thing is, you shouldn't project your weaknesses onto others and try to remove THEIR rights because YOU can't handle the responsibility of your OWN rights.

Gr8fulDaniel said:
Tobacco is a tyrant.

I say:
Tobacco is an innocent inanimate object. I thought you were a believer in God? I thought people who believed in Christian/Catholic religions believed that God put all plants, trees, and elements here for a reason. Tobacco is a very useful plant, and God must have put it here for a reason, no? Nicotine is its natural defense, are you trying to say God should have created a defenseless plant? Can you not affix the blame where it is directed, which is at YOURSELF, for not being able to CONTROL YOUR OWN CRAVINGS?

You sound like a madman, trying to outlaw chocholate cake because it gave you cavities and made you fat!

I would think God would frown on one of his own hating objects for his own shortcomings.

[Osborn F Enready]

Cephus said:
Landowners do not have the right to have toxic waste dumps on their property (without permits), they can't do dangerous experiments, they cannot blow things up, etc. Just because you own or lease a property doesn't mean that you get to do whatever you want to on it.

I say:
Well, that all depends on how well you understand your property rights as RECOGNIZED in the constitution, and your local city or village ordinances.
You do have the RIGHT, to do practically anything that doesn't harm another, but local ordinances may incur penalty for breaking code laws.

You can do dangerous experiments, of course, depending on what you consider dangerous. You can blow things up, within reason and of course observance of local code if you wish to do it without incurring a "fine".

You are confusing Federal and Local law. Many local laws are in place that are not constitutional, just because they have yet to be used, or effectively challenged. You cannot assume that a law is valid or constitutional because it exists, especially local ordinances.

Cephus said:
Smoking is a public health hazard. Period.

I say:
That is correct. The public should be wary of smokers exercising their rights in open air places if they feel threatened by incredibly low levels of smoke.

Cephus said:
In a business that is open to the public, smoking is restricted. Period.

I say:
Well, that is the current law in SOME places, because some people are willing to allow the rights of others to be curbed if it doesn't directly affect them. PERIOD! However, the practice of illegalization of legal activities on privately owned property is in itself illegal and an exercise in tyranny.

Cephus said:
If you want to have a smoking club, open only to members, called Cancer, feel free. I'm sure they'd be happy to sign a waver for your business and you can all smoke to your heart's delight, at least until your lungs implode.

I say:
Thats my point. It is not MY obligation as a property owner, to apply for special license to conduct a legal activity ON MY PROPERTY, or to ALLOW a LEGAL ACTIVITY for which I am not profitting from to occur. ( all a license is, is a fee collected by the city and a piece of paper "regulating" your rights voluntarily. You act as if a license makes it ok, but simply exercising my rights are not ok! )

It is the PEROGATIVE of the INDIVIDUAL to use their feet, and walk elsewhere if they don't like the way I conduct my business.

What can you not understand?

Publicly owned property, it is legal to regulate smoking.
Privately owned property "open" to the public, is the OWNER PEROGATIVE.

Use some common sense, and understand your rights.

[Imudman]

Quote by: Cephus ...Smoking is a public health hazard. Period. In a business that is open to the public, smoking is restricted. Period. If you want to have a smoking club, open only to members, called Cancer, feel free. I'm sure they'd be happy to sign a waver for your business and you can all smoke to your heart's delight, at least until your lungs implode.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. My problem is with the point you displayed in your post above, namely that a gang of people used health safety as justification for stripping away property rights from private citizens. If health were truly the issue, it should be illegal everywhere .

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of most of the people behind the bans - that what they're really about is controlling the behaviour of other people because smoking bothers them. Health safety is only a strawman concocted to give the electorate a reason to vote for stripping away private property rights.

You can go on comparing smoking to hard drugs, toxic waste dumps, and other far out villains, but it only serves to show your unreasonableness about the issue. It's all an attempt by you to justify in your mind that support for smoking bans is good.

Sorry, I won't fall for it. My eyes are wide open. It's socialism , friend...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You sound like a madman, trying to outlaw chocholate cake because it gave you cavities and made you fat!

We arent talking about fat and cavities. Good people die every day from cigarette poisoning. How can you presume to know what an addict experiences. Will power has nothing to do with it or I could have one now and then. I know better. I have a full knowlege of my condition because I have taken an honest personal inventory. The phenomenon of craving is not easily wave away as you suggest. If you can do it, good for you. I am happy for you. If I could do it I would, but I know without a doubt I would be back to 3 packs a day. Slowly committing suicide. I have witnessed lung cancer up close and personal. It has to be the worst way to die.
So, you speak from your experience as a casual smoker with the power to start and stop at will, only smoking when you choose. Thats cool. I am not like that and neither are millions of others who are pathetically addicted and can only stop by some power far greater than what I can muster. I am a free man, thank God, or whatever his name is.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Cigarettes, when used as directed will kill you.
Just like this product, when used as directed will cause serious injury, or death.

[Imudman]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Cigarettes, when used as directed will kill you. Just like this product, when used as directed will cause serious injury, or death.

That is absolutely hilarious! LOL! But seriously, we could be talking about Whoppers or Big Macs too. How come no one's pushing for No-Whopper zones? Because when you eat a good burger, the only people it offends are vegans, and there just aren't enough of them around to pass a law.

See, that's my problem with this issue, and about a hundred more issues. Everyone wants to control everyone else's behaviour in trivial things. Why should I care if you choose to eat 20 Whoppers a day? I shouldn't have to go into a public place and be subjected to dozens of half-starved human beings stuffing themselves dead animal sandwiches. And, Oh! the smell makes me retch...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Imudman That is absolutely hilarious!

Why dont any of the stores in my area carry those? I would have to make my own. Just try telling the kids they cant have any when they see me enjoying one. I bet they would make me look cooool! I wonder if that warning will discourage anyone?

[Osborn F Enready]

Oh the drama, I need my dramameen.

Now that all the opinions are out of the way......

What were the facts again?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What were the facts again?

The facts dont look good. NIDA RESEARCH REPORT

The impact of nicotine addiction in terms of morbidity, mortality, and economic costs to society is staggering. Tobacco kills more than 430,000 U.S. citizens each yearmore than alcohol, cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, fire, and AIDS combined. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

430,000 is the season attendance at some NFL Stadiums. Can you imagine if that business (the NFL) filled up a stadium several times a year and killed every last one of them. Legally, and nobody is outraged? This doesnt seem odd?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Smokers dont just kill themselves, either. Check out: Second Hand Smoke Poisons and Kills, Says WHO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and this:

WHO Why is tobacco a public health priority? Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world. It is currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide (about 5 million deaths each year). If current smoking patterns continue, it will cause some 10 million deaths each year by 2020. Half the people that smoke today -that is about 650 million people- will eventually be killed by tobacco. More information

[tinybear]

Second hand smoke from marijuana kills too, I'm told.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Imudman I'm not sure we're on the same page. My problem is with the point you displayed in your post above, namely that a gang of people used health safety as justification for stripping away property rights from private citizens. If health were truly the issue, it should be illegal everywhere .

To be honest, it probably should be, but because it's such a huge economic crop in some states, the chances of outlawing it are slim to none. That's fine though, if people want to smoke and kill themselves, that's their perogative, but that right ends at their own lips. You do not have the right to expose anyone else to your carcinogens. As such, you have to control your behavior or you have to have your behavior controlled for you.

Most of the bar bans that started all of this were because employees at the bars, people who don't have the option of simply going somewhere else, were being exposed to smoke 40+ hours a week and developing health problems. Through no fault of their own, they were being forcibly exposed to the emissions of smokers. Like it or not, it is a health issue and employers cannot, by law, expose their employees to toxic substances without proper safety equipment. Unless you're suggesting that all bar employees wear gas masks to avoid exposure to your toxic smoke, then the only logical and rational option is to limit your ability to smoke in these areas.

Or are you unable to control yourself and your ridiculous addictions?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Imudman See, that's my problem with this issue, and about a hundred more issues. Everyone wants to control everyone else's behaviour in trivial things. Why should I care if you choose to eat 20 Whoppers a day? I shouldn't have to go into a public place and be subjected to dozens of half-starved human beings stuffing themselves dead animal sandwiches. And, Oh! the smell makes me retch...

Because if someone eats 20 Whoppers a day, it only affects them. If someone drinks 10 bottles of vodka, their liver is the only one that gets killed (assuming they don't drive, of course). But if you smoke, everyone around you smokes. You don't just do damage to yourself, you spread the damage around to everyone in the vicinity.

You can whine about rights all you want, but your rights end when they start to affect other people and people defending 'property rights' don't seem to give a damn about anyone else but themselves.

[FIFI]

Yes, but just because it's a bad choice does it mean the gov't should interfere in my life and force me to stop. I agree that smoking should be done outside and a respectful distance away from those who find it offense, and trust me, most of us smokers don't mind moving away, as long as you ask us repectfully.

But the thing that burns my biscut is those who think that just becase they don't do it, they can be rude and nasty to smokers.
I might not like your overwhelming purfume, or paying taxes on the health problems your obesity gives you from eating too much. Heck, I might not like alot of things some people do, but theres tackful and respectful ways to ask us to do it somewhere else, or stop.

[gr8fuldaniel]

A family across the street from me brought home a baby boy a few months ago. For the first month everybody in the household would go outside to smoke. Five smokers. One little baby who was undersized because mommy smoked while preg (?). Anyway that only lasted a month. nobody comes outside to smoke anymore. I guess its OK for 5 adults to smoke in a little mobile home because the kid is a couple months old.

Quote by: FIFI I might not like your overwhelming purfume, or paying taxes on the health problems your obesity gives you from eating too much. Heck, I might not like alot of things some people do, but theres tackful and respectful ways to ask us to do it somewhere else, or stop.

How does a little baby ask you respectfully, to smoke somewhere else? Nature should say it loud and clear. But the drug is louder, more insistant. Shame on the mommys that have abandoned their children for love of a drug. Do you think that kid will be addicted in a few years? Damn right.

EDIT:
Should I ask them not to smoke around the kid?

[Imudman]

Quote by: Cephus Most of the bar bans that started all of this were because employees at the bars, people who don't have the option of simply going somewhere else, were being exposed to smoke 40+ hours a week and developing health problems. Through no fault of their own, they were being forcibly exposed to the emissions of smokers. Like it or not, it is a health issue and employers cannot, by law, expose their employees to toxic substances without proper safety equipment. Unless you're suggesting that all bar employees wear gas masks to avoid exposure to your toxic smoke, then the only logical and rational option is to limit your ability to smoke in these areas.

But businesses with fewer than 10 employees were exempted... Anyway, yes health is an issue,but as I said earlier, it's only a strawman concocted to give people justification to vote away property rights.

The smoking bans don'f affect people who use tobacco. They afftect people who own businesses with employees where tobacco smoke might be present, that's it. If you light up in a shopping mall, according to the law all anyone can do is refuse to give you service. But, and this goes to my point that it's about controlling your neighbor's obnoxious habits, what happens is the police are called and the offending party is asked to leave, whether employees are present or not.

See how it works? It's about controlling other people, not health...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Sac Bee That smell again: Sacramento anti-smoking guru Laurie Comstock is on another collision course with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his cigars. This time, Laurie is furious at statements the Austrian Oak made during an interview with Fox TV question man Chris Wallace. Arnold laughed at California legislation proposed by Assemblyman Juan Vargas of San Diego that would shut down the notorious smoking tent inside the Capitol courtyard. "As long as I'm at the Capitol, I will be smoking my stogies down there," Arnold told Chris. "It's my negotiation tent and no one is going to take it away." Laurie is planning another of her anti-cigar rallies at the Capitol. "His comments on this subject are outrageous," she said. "He makes a mockery of the rights of citizens to work in a smoke-free environment. I've walked in the Capitol, and you can smell it." She means the cigars. ...

She doesnt even make an issue of the fact that its contraband Cuban Cigars, that he smokes. Because it is a health issue. Cigar smoke is invasive and only an arrogant asshole like Arnie wouldnt get it.

[Cephus]

Quote by: FIFI Yes, but just because it's a bad choice does it mean the gov't should interfere in my life and force me to stop. I agree that smoking should be done outside and a respectful distance away from those who find it offense, and trust me, most of us smokers don't mind moving away, as long as you ask us repectfully.

I think that if that were true, these laws never would have come into being. People reacted the way they did because they couldn't get away from the smokers.

But the thing that burns my biscut is those who think that just becase they don't do it, they can be rude and nasty to smokers.

But it was fine that smokers were rude and nasty to non-smokers, right? Heck, you still see some of them purposely blowing smoke on people, etc.

I might not like your overwhelming purfume, or paying taxes on the health problems your obesity gives you from eating too much. Heck, I might not like alot of things some people do, but theres tackful and respectful ways to ask us to do it somewhere else, or stop.

But none of those things personally affect your health, that's the point. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for you to get. No matter what you do, unless you're wearing some sort of air-tight fish bowl on your head to keep all the smoke in, your habit is harming others. Period. You don't get fat by sitting next to some guy eating 50 cheeseburgers but if you sit next to a smoker, you are smoking. Period.

So now you are being asked to do it somewhere else. So long as your habit harms others, you will continue to be asked to do it somewhere else. This isn't rocket science.

[FIFI]

I know its not rocket science, infact, if you were paying attention, I agree that we smokers should be moved away, to be respectful. What I was expressing was attitude like yours that all smokers are rude "blowing smoke at people" and such. Not true, I have never done that, so stop labeling. Actually, alot of what you do effects others. How about the taxes I pay to help that obese person with their health results. Or the people who refuse to have hygene and make me sick, or damage property because they are onry (etc)