No smoking outside?

[Justin24]

http://www.theacorn.com/news/2006/0209/Front_page/001.html

I am not a smoke, but not letting people smoke outside is ridiculous.

 

[verte76]

I think this is stupid.

 

[nbcrusader]

I wonder why they still permit it in private homes. If smoking is bad as they say (affecting people other than the smoker), they should be able to ban it entirely.

 

[doubleU]

Standing at the pump while filling a full tank of gas, has the same effect of smoking about half a pack of smokes.

The amount of harmful smoke placed in the air of an unenclosed open space isn't even measurable.

Incredibly stupid law.

 

[Carek1230]

Wow. Although I do feel bad for smokers living in America, a "free" country in many respects, I am not a smoker nor do I like being around cigarette smoke. I grew up in a home where 2 parents and most adult relatives smoked. It was at times asphixiating. I try to stay away from it but I do not tell smokers they can't smoke. The only complaint I currently have, and it is because I choose not to go to places where smoking is everywhere (smoking cruises, casinos, etc) is my next door neighbor who smokes on the side of his house and blows it onto my side where the air brings it into any open windows I have. He is a very heavy smoker, and I can't stand the smell. So even when it is hot I try to keep my windows closed which isn't fair to me, but it is the compromise I pay for living next to something I do not like.

My aunt and my mother are the only smokers who visit my house and they will smoke outdoors, in the back corner of the yard. They don't complain about it. It certainly wouldn't be fair for a law to tell me I cannot allow them to smoke outdoors there or to tell them they cannot smoke in my yard.

 

[Liesje]

My aunt and my mother are the only smokers who visit my house and they will smoke outdoors, in the back corner of the yard. They don't complain about it. It certainly wouldn't be fair for a law to tell me I cannot allow them to smoke outdoors there or to tell them they cannot smoke in my yard.

This only applies to public places, not private residential property. I thought this same law existed in a few other places already?.... To me, it's no more of a big deal than laws that prohibit littering in public. If you need to smoke, do it in your own home/yard/vehicle.

 

[doubleU]

This only applies to public places, not private residential property. I thought this same law existed in a few other places already?.... To me, it's no more of a big deal than laws that prohibit littering in public. If you need to smoke, do it in your own home/yard/vehicle.

Littering laws are put there due to the fact that state employees will eventually have to pick them up. It has nothing to do with this law. This law is based upon nothing but the fact that some want to kill freedom of choice.

 

[Liesje]

Littering laws are put there due to the fact that state employees will eventually have to pick them up. It has nothing to do with this law. This law is based upon nothing but the fact that some want to kill freedom of choice.

Well, most of the litter I see is cigg butts. And how about everyone else's right to enjoy a stroll with the kids in a public park without choking or coming home smelling like an ash tray? Plenty of other choices are already banned from public places. You can do whatever you want within your own property, nothing new there.

 

[doubleU]

Well, most of the litter I see is cigg butts. And how about everyone else's right to enjoy a stroll with the kids in a public park without choking or coming home smelling like an ash tray? Plenty of other choices are already banned from public places. You can do whatever you want within your own property, nothing new there.

Like I said before a cigarettes smoke will dissipate in the open air. Yes I agree they should dispose of their butts responsibly, but cigarette smoke in the open air will not effect anyone.

 

[indra]

Like I said before a cigarettes smoke will dissipate in the open air. Yes I agree they should dispose of their butts responsibly, but cigarette smoke in the open air will not effect anyone.

And a couple of consenting adults having sex in public won't hurt anyone else either, but it's illegal.

 

[redkat]

And a couple of consenting adults having sex in public won't hurt anyone else either, but it's illegal.

yea WTF



I thought they were also moving to ban smoking in private vehicles if there is a child in the car.

 

[doubleU]

And a couple of consenting adults having sex in public won't hurt anyone else either, but it's illegal.

Uh yea, that's comparable.

 

[nbcrusader]

This only applies to public places, not private residential property. I thought this same law existed in a few other places already?.... To me, it's no more of a big deal than laws that prohibit littering in public. If you need to smoke, do it in your own home/yard/vehicle.

Some places have banned outdoor smoking in specific areas - such as the beach.

This is the first to ban all outdoor public smoking within a city limits.

There are numerous restrictions on our personal behavior - all with differing rationale. I could see the government going as far to ban smoking in private residences.

 

[Calluna]

I wonder why they still permit it in private homes. If smoking is bad as they say (affecting people other than the smoker), they should be able to ban it entirely.

They'll never ban smoking entirely because of the big tobacco corporations. NB, I thought you were the official defender of large corporations. I'm dissapointed in you now.

I am not in favor of banning smoking altogether and I am not a cigarette smoker.

 

[nbcrusader]

They'll never ban smoking entirely because of the big tobacco corporations. NB, I thought you were the official defender of large corporations. I'm dissapointed in you now.

I am not in favor of banning smoking altogether and I am not a cigarette smoker.

I know many can draw a stereotype about my positions and make conclusions I haven't made. No harm there

I have no love for tobacco companies, and have never understood the decades of government subsidies that go to tobacco farmers.

My point was highlight the extent to which the government can deem an activity harmful to others and ban it from occurring - even on private property.

 

[redkat]

The beach ban has more to do with environmental damage than anything else.

dead fish with cigarette butts in their bellies

 

[nbcrusader]

The beach ban has more to do with environmental damage than anything else.

dead fish with cigarette butts in their bellies

Is banning an activity (smoking) the most rational way to prevent a byproduct of the activity (litter)?

 

[Calluna]

So do you support a full ban on smoking? What about alcohol then? It's harmful too. Where would you draw the line?

Walmart harms people too. Why do you support them? Just because it isn't as easy to see the cause and effect in that situation?

 

[Liesje]

So do you support a full ban on smoking? What about alcohol then? It's harmful too. Where would you draw the line?

I thought alcohol usually IS banned from public parks/beaches.

I support a ban on smoking in public areas. It's no different than various other bans/restrictions (alcohol, littering, indecent exposure, drugs, fishing, hunting, dogs). I don't really see what the big deal is or how it's any different just because more people tend to do it. The government has the right to inforce bans since the property in question belongs to the government. I don't care if people smoke in their own cars, yards, or homes.

 

[redkat]

Is banning an activity (smoking) the most rational way to prevent a byproduct of the activity (litter)?

well it does make sense the closer to the beach someone leaves their butts the more likely they'll do harm. If you have to set a restriction to reduce the harm done that seems to be a good place to draw the line.

Of course living here we know that all storm drains lead to the ocean so no it doesn't solve the problem

 

[Calluna]

I thought alcohol usually IS banned from public parks/beaches.

I was actually referring to NB's statement that we should go all out and ban smoking from private homes too. I couldn't really tell if he was being serious about that one or not. I was wondering if he would support such a ban.

I'd also like to know to what extent he thinks the government should be able to interfere with our private lives in the name of safety and security.

 

[nbcrusader]

So do you support a full ban on smoking? What about alcohol then? It's harmful too. Where would you draw the line?

I wouldn’t consider a full ban on smoking a priority.

Drawing the line is another issue. Overall, the level of inconsistency in laws and regulations is measurable, but not to a degree that it creates a disruption in society.

Wal-Mart harms people too. Why do you support them? Just because it isn't as easy to see the cause and effect in that situation?

That’s really a non-sequitor. I don’t recall any deaths from shopping or working at Wal-Mart. The idea that Wal-Mart harms people is good union propaganda though.

 

[Irvine511]

That’s really a non-sequitor. I don’t recall any deaths from shopping or working at Wal-Mart. The idea that Wal-Mart harms people is good union propaganda though.

what about when Wal Mart sells guns to 14 year olds and they go out and shoot someone?

 

[melon]

I don't have much of a love for tobacco myself. If it didn't have 400 years of history on its side, it would likely be as banned as asbestos and DDT.

Interestingly, tobacco probably won't need to be banned on a federal level, because health insurance companies are doing a good job of that itself. More and more companies are now charging smokers more for health insurance than non-smokers, with the difference being often as much as $50 extra a month.

Melon

 

[Calluna]

I wouldn’t consider a full ban on smoking a priority.

Ok, so it's not a priority for you but you'd still suport a full ban?

That’s really a non-sequitor.

I disagree. I think you're just avoiding the questions, as usual.

 

[nbcrusader]

Ok, so it's not a priority for you but you'd still suport a full ban?

No, I would not support a full ban.

I disagree. I think you're just avoiding the questions, as usual.

Okay, I disagree with the statement that Walmart hurts people. I wasn't avoiding the question, I just thought it was bull

 

[the iron horse]

The war on tobacco...
*which so many today seem to clap a yes*

Ten minutes with me in a closed garage smoking a cigar
or ten minutes with my SUV running ?

I'm tired of being told what will kill me.
Please let us know your plans are on how to live foreever.

Whatever happened to freedom?

Are we so ready to bow to a dictator?


Are we frogs slowly being brought to a boil?

*my thoughts do relate*


What do you think?

 

[financeguy]

^ Iron horse

 

[nbcrusader]

Are we frogs slowly being brought to a boil?

In so many ways....

 

[olympia85]

why they can put any ahstray on the sidewalk?