http://www.theacorn.com/news/2006/0209/Front_page/001.html
I am not a smoke, but not letting people smoke outside is ridiculous.
I am not a smoke, but not letting people smoke outside is ridiculous.
Carek1230 said:
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.
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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 said:
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.
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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 said:
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 said:
And a couple of consenting adults having sex in public won't hurt anyone else either, but it's illegal.
indra said:
And a couple of consenting adults having sex in public won't hurt anyone else either, but it's illegal.
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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.
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.nbcrusader said: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.
Calluna said:
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.
redkat said:The beach ban has more to do with environmental damage than anything else.
dead fish with cigarette butts in their bellies
Calluna said:So do you support a full ban on smoking? What about alcohol then? It's harmful too. Where would you draw the line?
nbcrusader said:
Is banning an activity (smoking) the most rational way to prevent a byproduct of the activity (litter)?
I thought alcohol usually IS banned from public parks/beaches.
Calluna said:So do you support a full ban on smoking? What about alcohol then? It's harmful too. Where would you draw the line?
Calluna said: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?
nbcrusader said: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.
nbcrusader said:I wouldn’t consider a full ban on smoking a priority.
I disagree. I think you're just avoiding the questions, as usual.That’s really a non-sequitor.
Calluna said:
Ok, so it's not a priority for you but you'd still suport a full ban?
Calluna said:I disagree. I think you're just avoiding the questions, as usual.
the iron horse said:Are we frogs slowly being brought to a boil?