Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here we go with another war on a legal habit. Smoking is gross and annoying, but if politicians want to restrict smoking, then restrict it more and more and more, they need to cut the cord and make it completely illegal altogether.
Seems to me they tried that once before with something that some people objected to mightily and made a huge outcry should be banned because THEY didn't like it and it had a bad impact on some so no one should be able to have access. Was something called the 18th Amendment, aka Prohibition. We all know how well that worked out. So the same kind of people, and the politicians, are trying a different tactic this time - the Chinese Water Torture tactic.
The 18th Amendment, by the way, was significant in another way. It was the first time that the Constitution had been amended to DECREASE liberty rather than add to it. Even considering that a possibility was likely the beginning of the end for the great experiment that is our country and form of government - once people realized that they could legislate away the rights of others, it was Katy bar the door.
I just spent 3 days in a non-smoking motel-room........oh yeah, the room next to mine was also
non-smoking. Well, I was nauseated the whole 3 days from the 2nd-hand smoke.
.
You stayed at a Motel what do you expect. Try a hotel next time.
I don't think that this ordinance would work. However, I do hate it when I'm walking around outside and have to pass someone smoking a cigarette and forced to be next to them. I hold my breath, but the smoke smell will stick to my hair and clothing. Yuck. Gross.
So I understand what might have inspired the creation of this ordinance.
Boy, you can sure tell who the smokers and non-smokers are on this thread!
Not necessarily. I don't smoke - tried it once when in college in 1969, because I was living with three chain-smokers and it was exam time and I figured if there was ever a good time to try it that was it. Doesn't agree with me, so I haven't smoked since. But I don't consider my preferences and what works and doesn't work for me to be what should determine how everyone else lives their lives.
I dont understand, if they hate smoking so much, and all pretty agree that is dangerous, why are they not targeting access, sales and distribution? Ive never once heard ANYONE even suggest new regulations on the sale of tobacco or the tobacco industry itself, but when opioid prescription drugs start becoming a problem, everyone goes after the pharma companies, they restrict access, sales, etc.
None of the pharma companies complained when govt cracked down on their most popular opioids, so Im assuming the tobacco industry would be no different if Govt targeted their products...right?
Because the government is making a crapload of money on cigarette taxes - in reality they want as many "undesirable" people as possible to smoke -more taxes and they die younger so less social security and medicare/medicaid to pay.
Boy, you can sure tell who the smokermake and non-smokers are on this thread!
I don't smoke, but that doesn't mean I want to ban smokers to smoke outside.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
