January first 2008 it becomes illegal to smoke in most public buildings. that is sweeeet!!
Ohio did last fall and it is really nice! The town I live in passed law 2 years before that made it illegal in most reastaurants and public areas so it was not as noticeable. A big change was that most work places became smoke free as well as all bars and bowling alleys. Nothing I hated more than was coming home from a night out and smelling like a smoke!
if the excess alcohol intake doesn’t make you sick the smell of smoke filled hair will!
Just another civil liberty and freedom taken away by the moral majority right wing conspiracy.
Just another civil liberty and freedom taken away by the moral majority right wing conspiracy.
THANK YOU!!!
i don’t know if you’re serious or not, but i am.
and i don’t blame it on the right wing, i blame it on the establishment.
does anyone not realize that SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL? the establishment will gladly take the TAX MONEY from it; but then forbids the usage? what kind of bullshit is that?
this is just another thing the government is controlling. the bigger picture, that most people miss, is that RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY THE GOVERNMENT.
i’m not a smoker–in fact i quit smoking over 10 years ago! but people can go into most any carry out or gas station and buy smokes. if the government was so concerned about our health they would make it illegal. but it’s not…why is that? because they want the money! because they want to control our freedoms.
the government doesn’t care about our health! they care about controlling us and taking our tax money.
wise up. this is not a good thing. remember this: something else is next. and it might be “your thing” they take. then we’ll see how happy you are. think it won’t happen; think the government would never violate liberties that important to YOU? see…that’s the scary part. do not trust the government blindly–it does not have your interest at heart.
if they take your thing–guess what, they’re gonna take my thing to. that’s how it works people.
our government was established to protect us (as in military forces), and look what’s it become… this is not what our founders intended.
does anyone not realize that SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL? the establishment will gladly take the TAX MONEY from it; but then forbids the usage? what kind of bullshit is that?
Who exactly is forbiding the use of cigarettes?
You realize that the combustion engine is also legal, but not in restaurants or office buildings. You don’t think that’s bullshit as well, do you?
we’re talking about smoking–not engines. keep that straight. we’re talking about people’s liberties being altered by the government. not engines, aircrafts, trains or planes. this is about SMOKING and how the government is now telling people where/when/how they can do that, essentially makes it harder for people to enjoy their liberty, yet the government BENEFITS from the sale of the goods.
if it weren’t for the tax BENEFIT the government gets; smoking would probably be illegal.
you can go ahead, obviously, and feel the the government is doing you a great favor. but just wait until they alter a freedom that is important to you. to believe this will not happen somewhere down the line is absurd.
if the government takes your thing; it won’t be long before they take my thing too.
what’s important to you sphere? guns? marriage laws? right to own property? your income? freedom of worship? right to vote? civil rights?
once the government starts taking our liberties on one small thing, all other things are that much more vulnerable to the establishment now. it’s not just about smoking–it’s about freedom in general. think about that; it’s the big picture we all need to focus on.
kc-out.
does anyone not realize that SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL? the establishment will gladly take the TAX MONEY from it; but then forbids the usage? what kind of bullshit is that?
Who exactly is forbiding the use of cigarettes?
You realize that the combustion engine is also legal, but not in restaurants or office buildings. You don’t think that’s bullshit as well, do you?
I don’t care who you are. that there is funny!! Great point!!!
does anyone not realize that SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL?
… and people can STILL smoke.
People, in America, have freedoms as long as they don’t impinge another’s rights.
I think non-smokers can make the case that they have as much right , probably more right, to not be bombarded with second-hand, health-harming smoke in public places (especially asmatics), while still allowing smokers the legal right to smoke in private or designated areas.
We are allowed to do quite a few things in private that we cannot do in public. Do we even need to start that list?
Honestly, if smokers were more polite and responsible by not distributing their second-hand, health-destroying smoke to everyone else, including kids … this law would never need to be passed. With freedom comes responsibility.
if the government was so concerned about our health they would make it illegal.
The government should only make things illegal if they violate the right’s of others. If you do something that is unhealthy, but doesn’t impinge anyone else’s rights, then it’s just a bad choice, but should not be illegal.
wise up. this is not a good thing. remember this: something else is next. and it might be “your thing” they take.
If what I do violates the inalienable rights of others, then it should be illegal.
Again, smoking is STILL legal … just not in areas/locations where it violates others’s rights to not be bombarded with second-hand smoke.
we’re talking about smoking–not engines. keep that straight.
I’m talking about keeping known carcinogens out of confined public airspace. Let’s keep that straight.
If one of my personal habits posed a significant, well-known threat to the health of others around me, don’t think for a second I’d be mounting a “personal liberty” defense. I happen to like guns, but I generally refrain from shooting mine inside Pottery Barn. There is an appropriate time and place for everything; just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s safe, or reasonable to expect to be able to use those products anywhere and everywhere they deem fit.
And please tell me you didn’t bring civil rights into a discussion about smoking in restaurants. There’s an argument to be made on your side of the debate, but that ain’t it.
Do you think business owners should have the right/ability to declare their business as “smoking” or “non-smoking”?
you’re blinded.
and you like guns?
then you especially should be AGAINST this smoking ban.
as for the ban, this is just the beginning–people will soon not be able to smoke at home, in their car, and will risk getting fired for smoking during times outside of work, even though smoking is an activity that is legal. yet; the government will be happy to continue to take the tax benefits and not make smoking illegal (because to make it illegal would cause a great loss in funds).
it doesn’t go both ways–either the government can infringe upon your liberties, or it can’t. it doesn’t infringe “just a little”. the government just doesn’t take an inch; it takes a mile or more.
realize your gun rights are just as vulnerable as someone’s ability to smoke, or designate your business as smoking or non-smoking.
what if you could get fired, or loose your business, because you own firearms? what if you could get fired because you drink beer at home? think that sounds absurd? well, not being able to smoke outside would have sounded absurd just a few years ago. having the government dictate your business as non-smoking (as in you could get shut down or heavily fined for allowing smoking) sounded like an absurd idea just a few years ago.
you see, i’m not talking about the pottery barn. i’m talking about how the government can take one small thing, and then continue to take more and more and more, yet benefit financially from the control. do not be blinded–that is what’s happening.
to believe it won’t happen to things you enjoy is to be naive.
That’s more in line with my view, although it still poses the unsafe-workplace challenge that ultimately drives the legislation. I think there’s a strong argument to be made for specific exemptions from such laws, such as for private clubs and tobacco-related businesses.
Like you, I support people’s right to choose for themselves - but certainly not for others. I don’t think it needs to extend to open places like city parks, but unlike kittycat, I believe the government has a responsibility to act in the interest of public health as it relates to how and where dangerous legal products can be used. The fact that the very same government does engage in hypocricy on tobacco issues doesn’t negate their responsibility in taking acting to minimize the risk to citizens in general.
(Speaking of hypocricy, I get a good laugh out of smokers who decry the loss of their freedom while being held hostage to a life-threatening addiction. “Well, I chose to be addicted” was my personal favorite response to that challenge.)
you’re blinded…naive.
and you like guns?
then you especially should be AGAINST this smoking ban.
OK, I thought we were going to have a rational discussion here. My mistake.
see that’s just it; it’s not acting out of public interest. it is operating out of it’s own interest; regardless of you and me.
there is all kinds of shit going on that hurts people. everybody’s a fat ass for one thing…where is the government intervention on that? why doesn’t the government heavily fine McDonald’s, parents, or people, for overeating and getting fat? because doing so doesn’t really benefit the government; or it is not a platform in which people can get elected.
why doesn’t the government fine people or establishments for alcoholism? because there is no benefit; or this topic is not a political platform in which people can get elected.
the government is NOT acting out of public interest (otherwise smoking would have been illegal years and years ago). “acting out of public interest” is a disguise used to trick us into handing over our freedoms until we eventually have no more.
it doesn’t work to say, “smoking is something i don’t like–it hurts people, so it’s good the government says we can’t do it in public/private places”. then turn around and say, “i like guns and want the right to own guns; it’s ok for the government to say where and when we should shoot them”.
what i said is–when the government takes away something (smoking); it will soon take away your thing too (guns, or whatever other freedom you enjoy). to believe this won’t happen is to be blinded and slight.
there is no such thing as partial intervention. i believe that is true for war, and also true for the government infringing upon our rights. we are all vulnerable; the government is only looking out for itself.
as for the ban, this is just the beginning–people will soon not be able to smoke at home,
No.
in their car,
No. Although I do not understand why it’s illegal for an 8yo to smoke, but perfectly legal for them to inhale 5 second-hand cigs on their ride to school.
and will risk getting fired for smoking during times outside of work,
Not if they are in designated areas or take a drive. I have always been fascinated that smokers get 5-6 “breaks” at work, while non-smokers do not. Another thread.
even though smoking is an activity that is legal.
Masturbation is legal too. Go ahead and try to do it in a restuarant or at work (even on your break).
yet; the government will be happy to continue to take the tax benefits and not make smoking illegal (because to make it illegal would cause a great loss in funds).
Making it illegal, IMO, would be a violation of rights, unless one could successful argue that cigarettes create an environemnt (like more addictive drugs, meth, heroin, etc) due to the addictive nicotine where the user no longer chooses to use the product and whose body has been chemically altered to require the product.
it is operating out of it’s own interest;
With fewer places to smoke, isn’t it possible that FEWER cigs would be smoke resulting in FEWER cigs to be sold, and LESS tax money collected.
If the gov’t was interested in ONLY tax money, wouldn’t they allow cigs to be smoked everywhere, and by more peole (lower the age to 14), and allow cig smoking to take place on mainstream TV, ads allowed back in magazines, etc?
I don’t think you’ve really thought this out and are speaking out of emotion.
I found a bunch of old sports magazniens the other day and have been looking through them The number/volume of smoking ads is unbelievable. They stick out like a sore thumb due to our modern prohibition on those ads in magazines.
The government certainly seems to be doing a lot that interferes with their potential to collect tax money.
I am, in theory, a libertarian, although I realize America does not have the moral character, responsibility, and restraint for such a society to exist. L:ike I said before, if smokers were more polite and responsible with their smoking and not do it in areas where large numbers of non-smokers and children are present (and in enclosed areas), there would be no need for the law.
Yes but the combustion engine IS legal in garages and other establishments that rely on them for their business. I have little or no problem with banning smoking in purely public places. Place like court houses, DMV’s etc where we all must have access to them. I do have a major problem with the government dictating to a company that makes choices based on clientel what they can and or can’t do. We have similar infringements with such rulings as no Coconut oil in my popcorn at the theater and forcing food companies to “Healthy up” their foods. I miss my old Oreo cookies and yummy popcorn and damn it if I want to go to a bar and light up a smoke with other people doing the same I should be able to. If the market continues to turn then these places would disappear anyway.
~Matt
it seems you’re behind in your knowledge. there has been plenty of political discussion for smoking bans in cars or at home. while it’s not that way right now, to my knowledge, it could be very soon–again, there has been plenty of conversation and initiative towards it. do a google.
and the government continues to hike up the taxes on smoking…it is still benefiting from smokers and will continue to do so. 14 year olds do buy smokes; that is no secret. believing the government acts out of our interest is the purest form of being blinded.
to your point about masturbation–was masturbation ever legal in the office, or in restaurants? could someone ever legally walk down the street and masturbate? no.
you guys love to get off track to loop something laughable that is no relation to smoking bans so you can make some weird point. again–this is not pottery barn; the mall; masturbation; nor is it engines of any sort.
again–if smoking is so bad, if the government is SO concerned about our general health, then why not make smoking illegal? because it benefits.
and when the government takes away one freedom; there are more freedoms to disappear soon after. while smoking may not matter to you, it is something you don’t like, there are freedoms you do enjoy that are now even more vulnerable.
those of you that get this, get it. those of you that want to side with the government, one day you’ll have a rude awakening; you’ll find out big brother is not your friend. your personal freedoms are just as vulnerable even though you don’t smoke.
ok–this time i really am out. kc.
I’m talking about keeping known carcinogens out of confined public airspace.
Why not take a look at the long list of known carcinogens and get back to me. Our “public airspace” is literally filled with them. In fact we don’t actually do anything to completely get rid of them, merely make sure that they are at certain levels deemed to kill you in a long enough time, unlike a bullet that will kill you instantly.
~Matt