Smoking Ban bill as been passed (Plymouth, Norwood: rent, loft, unemployed)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Why they let people drinking alcohol light a flame in a public building should be banned by firecodes in the first place.

For what reason? I just did a quick search for various phrases and the only thing I could come up with is a danger to the person drinking it. It's relatively very small amount of combustible material, the tray holding the packs of matches on the bar would be a far more serious fire hazard. Ban them too?

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Get that Bic Mac while you can: "fast food" ban - Google Search

L.A. official proposes fast-food ban - Diet and nutrition - MSNBC.com

While I am in favor of smoking bans, because smoking affects others, I do not agree with any type of food bans. Real nutritionists, the ones that studied nutrition in college, for the most part agree that any food is OK in moderation. Overweight does not affect the others around one, either. The above cannot be said about cigarette smoking.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Real nutritionists, the ones that studied nutrition in college, for the most part agree that any food is OK in moderation.

That would only apply to those that make a choice to eat it in moderation, like the smoking bill laws these take a sledgehammer approach and will deny a choice to everyone. As they say these trends start in in the west and make there way east, give it a few years... coming to a town/state near you soon.

There's a better article here: A strict order for fast food - Los Angeles Times

“While limiting fast-food restaurants isn’t a solution in itself, it’s an important piece of the puzzle,” said Mark Vallianatos, director of the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College.
This is “bringing health policy and environmental policy together with land-use planning,” he said. “I think that’s smart, and it’s the wave of the future.”

And:

A California law banning sugary drinks and limiting the fat and sugar content of foods sold in middle and high schools took effect in July. And the state enacted legislation last year to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables to be sold in corner stores in lower-income communities.

I can agree with limited banning of such food in schools because you have a captive audience, the second part of the above paragraph is what is disconcerting and quite similar to the smoking ban as its dictating how the business is run, wouldn't they already be selling fruits and vegetables if there was a market for it?

[Katiana]

Well, it is California, LOL!

Seriously, supposedly one of the reasons people in low-income areas don't eat as much fresh fruit and vegetables is that it is not available in neighborhood stores. We once lived in a rather sketch neighborhood in Denver, and I would agree the produce available there was lilmited, at best. I don't know how you get more people to purchase it if they don't want to spend their money that way, especially if the produce is crap. It may be a chicken and egg situation that has no remedy.

[harleyrider1978]

anyway you look at it, the antis/progressives/prohibitionists are out to outlaw anything and everything they dont like. Whether your a smoker or an obese over eater or a kid who likes a twinky or a soda at school.
These health fanatics have to be defeated and their entire cause wiped out............We the people are the victims when it comes to pogressives out to deny people their rights and liberty........dont let health studies and claims cloud the fact these people are NAZIS set on a socialist change and anyone who defends them is as anti-american as the taliban.....or al quieda........

[The Commish]

Stick to smoking bans, please.

"Nazis," "Taliban," "Al Qaeda," "Socialists," Anti-American," "Fascism," and "Treason" among others have nothing to do with this discussion. Frankly, using such terms is just a lazy, reactionary rhetorical device used by our friend harleyrider1978 to demonize the other side. I'm not sure where this comes from, but if I had to guess, it's from the bowls of AM talk radio. Regardless, the point is that demonizing the other side is just a lazy substitute for discussion. Let's try to be more thoughtful.

That said, harleyrider1978, there's just no other way to say this but your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. Something isn't a fundamental right immune from regulation by virtue of (1) being around before the Constitution was written and (2) the document makes no specific reference to it. There isn't a single constitutional scholar that would support a view like that.

Also, nothing is immune from regulation under the Constitution. Fundamental rights can sometimes be regulated if the states have a *very* compelling reason. This is called strict scrutiny review. Laws evaluated under this standard of review typically don't survive review, but they can in some circumstances.

Smoking laws, however, are evaluated solely under rational basis scrutiny. That is most deferential standard of review, and it basically means that the state only has to articulate a rational basis for the law for it to survive judicial scrutiny by the reviewing court. You could argue for the court to apply a less deferential standard of review, but practically no one thinks smoking is such a fundamental right.

You're up against a clear majority here and you have no minority protection in the Constitution for this issue.

[thecoalman]

Commish, my position when this debate has ever come up is that our freedoms are slowly being eroded. Whereas you may have many people that could agree to a smoking ban when they see the other side of the coin and it hits home such as the regulation of what you eat it may just not sound like such a great idea. Whether you like it or not its certainly within the scope of this topic.

As for the majority I would not be so sure, I ran a poll on my own website and so far it's 12-11 against the ban. that's from a wide demographic but far from conclusive because of the small amount of people voting. Would be interesting if this was a poll... I asked that the same thread in the Pennsylvanian forum be made into a poll when it was first posted but the request either either got overlooked or ignored.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by herefreeman

In 1975 at the UN 3rd world conference on smoking and health the following plan evolved....


....There is no scientific evidence that smoking or ETS has ever harmed anyone.

Science has gotten better since 1975, 33 years ago.



Here's the WHO:

According to the World Health Organization, breathing second-hand or passive smoke causes lung cancer, increasing the risk by 20 to 30 percent. Approximately 53,000 non-smokers in the U.S. die each year from exposure to passive smoke.

Prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke also will increase your risk of coronary heart disease by 25 to 30 percent, and has been linked to an increased risk of stroke and other illnesses.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

As for the majority I would not be so sure, I ran a poll on my own website and so far it's 12-11 against the ban. that's from a wide demographic but far from conclusive because of the small amount of people voting. Would be interesting if this was a poll... I asked that the same thread in the Pennsylvanian forum be made into a poll when it was first posted but the request either either got overlooked or ignored.

Your poll is unscientific and therefore any results gained from it are unreliable.

Read up on it.

[thecoalman]

Perhaps you missed my disclaimer that it's far from conclusive? That means it may not be accurate.

Anything else you need explained?

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Perhaps you missed my disclaimer that it's far from conclusive? That means it may not be accurate.

Anything else you need explained?

Yes, I saw that, and you're still wrong. You said it wasn't conclusive because only a small number of people voted. Short of everyone in the state voting, it doesn't matter how many people vote in your poll. It's not scientific. So any result from virtually any number of people won't be "conclusive."