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.
Unfortunately, most smokers don't keep their filthy habit inside. They toss their butts out of the car window, leave them on the beach, and throw them into shrubs. I used to work in a large office building and the smokers would all run outside to suck in their poison. The shrubs were littered with cigarette butts. I've seen people put them out on sidewalks and in elevators. I often wonder what kind of pig sties these people live in, since they don't seem to have any respect for public or private property.
Then there's the effect on the environment. 62 of the approx 4,000 chemical compounds in cigarettes have been known to cause cancer in both humans and animals. These chemicals are released into the ground and our water supplies. I've seen the tons (yes tons) of cigarettes smokers leave in the sand. They get into our beautiful Gulf and, even worse, the stomachs of birds, fish, and marine mammals that ingest them.
Sure, if there was a way to avoid cigarettes, I'd be all for it. When you find one, let me know.
You can't be serious? I'd like to see a link to that study! LOL!
Yes, there are a lot of horrible littler bugs in the world... they leave their trash all over the place... tissue paper, shopping bags, hair bands, paper of all sorts, paper cups, it's really gross out there.... people are often very dirty and disgusting and lazy. People... in general. Funny fact... Smokers Are people.
no, you feel that you have more rights than me though. How is my smoking 10+ feet away from you doing anything to you? MAYBE if we were in a tiny enclosed closet with no ventilation.. ok, then I can see how it could be a problem for you. But at disneyland? At the park? At the beach? Really? You think that my tiny little bit of smoke that will absolutely come no where near you unless you put your nose in the smoke, is going to harm you... well, that's just crazy... and yet more and more places, OUTSIDE are banning smoking. I have no more and no LESS rights than you.. but too many people forget taht I do not have LESS rights simply because I choose to smoke.
This is why I find it silly that, first they ban it indoors or in private establishments where it should be the right of the business owner. They got there way. But no! That wasn't good enough for them, was it?! They have to go and push for ban outdoors, under the guise that a little cigarette can hurt those around them who could be 10 feet or more away. Really? Because, if I'm not mistaken there are far more pollutants in the air we breathe than anything a little second hand smoke can give off outdoors.
You make a lot of great points that I agree with. If you go back to my first post I said I don't like govt. dictating things like this... in general. And that I think it would be more appropriate for business owners to be able to handle this on a case by case basis, free markets and all. But smoking happens to be a nuisance (again, my position isn't about cancer, just a horrible, invasive, pervasive smell that smokers don't actually notice because they are constantly surrounded by it, I know I smoked for about 12 years) at a level that enough people have said they've had it.
That's all well and good ... you consider smoking a nuisance, and that's your opinion. And though you are free to have an opinion, you are not free to force that opinion on others who disagree with you. You claim you are all for freedom and liberty, and all that good stuff ... yet you feel the line has to be drawn somewhere, sometimes, and according to you, smoking is that place needing the line. The problem there is that given the many different people in the world, with all sorts of ideas about what might constitute a nuisance in their opinion, succumbing to the faulty notion that it's OK to ban a nuisance for nuisance sake, opens up a very large can of worms that you should not want to open, if you gave careful enough thought to the idea.
To illustrate the insanity of this mindset of banning nuisances, it was recently in the news that a New Jersey Town banned "texting" while walking. Yes, you heard that right ... I didn't say driving ... I said WALKING. So, if you text in public, you'd better stand perfectly still, else you face an $85 fine. God knows we can't have a bunch of people walking dangerously ... western civilization may implode!!
The point I'm driving at here is that those Town council people apparently think it is perfectly reasonable and rational to impose a law against what they consider to be "dangerous walking", though I myself cannot find anything at all rational in such a ridiculous concept. What's the danger? One of these "reckless walkers" might bump into someone? Afraid they might walk out into traffic? My, what a nuisance that could be. Frankly, I say let Darwinian evolution work it's magic ... and the problem will self resolve.
But this is just an example ... and it's true ... not made up. And it illustrates the danger of imposing a bans, even on something which may have limited though legitimate merit, because the "precedent" is then set legitimizing the act of banning a thing, which WILL extend to the same action being taken for all sorts of illegitimate reasons. I promise you, those people in New Jersey believe just as strongly as you do, that their idea of what constitutes a "nuisance" is just as valid as yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerver
In your situation above, I obviously would prefer the first scenario, but freedom isn't free and there are exceptions.
You are both right and wrong here. You're right that freedom isn't free, but you are dead wrong in the inane idea that the cost of freedom must be paid by giving up a little piece of freedom. I cannot imagine the thought processes that can reconcile this level of contradiction. Maybe you can explain to me how this little pay as you go scheme will work, as little by little, the freedom that you have is paid for by giving up a little chunk of freedom here, and a little chunk of freedom there .... what happens when you run out of these chunks of "freedom currency" ? I guess the game is over?
You see, this is that Orwellian double talk that has been foisted on the public for years now ... we have to give up some of our rights in order to protect those rights? Really!!!! WRONG .... if you give them up, there is nothing to protect!
Freedom is not free ... but the cost of freedom is not freedom itself, it is the wisdom to embrace the idea that with freedom comes the LIKELIHOOD of inconveniences, and NUISANCES that one must simply learn to tolerate for the sake of freedom, because the loss of freedom (or the willing abandonment of it) has far more negative consequences than mere nuisances could ever produce.
Freedom is like pregnancy ... you cannot be a "little pregnant" nor can you be a "little free" ... you either are or you aren't. And you must be willing to pay the price, because nothing of great value comes free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerver
You can't yell fire in a theater.
That's not true ... you can go into an empty theater and yell fire all day long, and there is no law you'd be breaking (so long as you had permission to be there). And the act of yelling "fire" is not the crime, it is the purposeful harm caused by creating a stampede of people trying to exit ... and no one has the right to cause harm to others in such a manner, whether it is yelling "Fire" or taking an authentic looking toy gun and threatening someone ... that is still considered armed assault. But to commit a real crime (under the definitions in common law) there must be a harmed party, else no crime has taken place. Which is directly contrary to the idea of laws which impose punishment in absence of a harmed party ... like those "Dangerous Walkers". We have laws to address harm caused to others ... but in a just and civil society, there can be no true justice or liberty when behaviors not causing measurable, provable harm can still be prosecuted based on the theoretical possibility of harm, which is imagined by others. In such a case, the mere changing of a radio station while driving could be considered an illegal act. There is no stopping such a snowball, once it is set loose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerver
I always go back to the freedom bubble. Your freedom bubble ends when it pops my freedom bubble. Aside from that, everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want. But in public, we kinda need to get along, and given that everyone has different interests, comfort levels, etc., we sometimes have to come up with guidelines to achieve that, if people aren't responsible enough to do it on their own. My 2 cents.
You seem trapped in circular reasoning ...you seem to understand that the multitudes of people in the world have such different ideas about "comfort", which also extends to what they might consider a "nuisance", you either have to accept the idea of tolerating nuisances, or find a way to eliminate all possibilities, based on the multitude of different opinions. This itself exposes the can of worms that you want to ignore.
I agree with you that we as a society need to be more considerate of each other ... but imposing one's will on others will NEVER foster those considerations ... quite the opposite, really. When you tell someone they cannot do something, that causes either rebellion or resentment, and always places them in a defensive position, to which they will inevitably dig their heals in, and refuse to budge. Do you think this is the path to compromise? Hardly!
No one can force another person to be considerate. You can force them to behave a certain way by law, but that doesn't foster the spirit of cooperation and consideration, and eventually leads to polarization and endless conflict. One side pitted against the other, in a constant battle of one up-man-ship, ultimately leading to levels of resentment that preclude any chance of reconciliation.
You foster cooperation and consideration by offering it .. not demanding it from others, as if you are entitled to it but they aren't. You lead by example, not by demand. If someone is smoking near you and it bothers you, you can simply move ... if moving away is not an option in that circumstance, you can politely ask "excuse me, I don't wish to be rude, but cigarette smoke really drives my allergies crazy .. would you mind moving back a bit ... I would move but I can't". This is far more likely to get a positive response than "Arrghh .. must you smoke that filthy cigarette!! It's so rude and disgusting!" Which one do you think would foster more cooperation ... and which attitude is more common among the anti-smoking zealots?
Just to recall an incident long ago ... just after the ban on smoking in the workplace .... I grabbed a cigarette, and jumped on the elevator to go down to the 1st floor to go outside and smoke. On the next floor, a lady got on ... looked at the cigarette in my hand and made this screwy face, waving her hand as if her entire head was engulfed in a huge cloud of smoke, and about to pass out .... and I lifted my hand, holding the UNLIT cigarette ... and said, Mam' it's not even lit. She got off on the next floor in a huff .... and the look she gave me could have been mistaken for a look one would give a rapist or child molester. This is the pompous attitude so many consistently direct at smokers, without hesitation or even an attempt to be civil.
And still, that doesn't dissuade me from trying to be considerate of others. I have always tried to position myself so as to avoid inundating others with smoke ... and I always asked others if smoke bothered them when in a confined space, and I knew they were not smokers ... and I field dress cigarettes when an appropriate receptacle isn't near, and throw the butt in a trash can later. I have always done that because I was raised to be considerate of others, regardless of the issue, not because I was forced to be. But at the same time I understand that not everyone demonstrates that level of consideration, and some people are just down right rude ... but that can be said of non-smokers too! And I have to admit, the more aggressive this anti-smoking crowd becomes, the less considerate I feel like being. It's a natural response.
So now, ... I draw the line at "None of your business" what I do, so long as no harm comes to you while I do it. As for the nuisance factor, I can't control what others choose to be annoyed by ... rude, self righteous arse holes annoy me too, but there's so many, I've learned to tolerate some and ignore the others.
I spent a few days in Las Vegas where smoking was allowed indoors and after two days, I could barely see as my eyes were burning like crazy. Avoiding the smoke was nearly impossible as you were forced to walk through the casinos to get in and out of the hotel Oh, it was so nice to be back in California and have smoke-free air to breathe. So no ... I don't miss the era prior to smoking bans at all
First, let me thank you for leaving your money here! Helps to keep us from having to pay state taxes! Bravo!
Second, FORCED to walk through the casinos? You do know there are hotels without casinos here, right? And right now, the casinos are the only ones that allow smoking now. Sad, very sad. What's more sad is that you think you were FORCED to do anything! Was a gun put to your head as you walked into the casino? Were you tied up by kidnappers and brought here (where are those kid nappers when you need them? I wanna go on a vacation!)? No, it was your CHOICE to book that hotel, it was your choice to go to the casino... so there was no one actually forcing you to do anything.
I love not having to choke down other people's smoke. When it was proven that second hand smoke is not good for you, that seals it with me. Take the carcinigen outside where you can slowly murder yourself. Keep it suicide, not homocide.
Fine. Then don't continue to ban smoking outdoors, at places like the park, amusement park, or zoos, ect, ect.... While I still feel it's the right of the business owner to decide, and it's your right to go elsewhere that doesn't allow smoking, I'll gladly concede and "go outside." However; since I've now gone outside, then don't complain!
And if I only had a dollar for each time ... I could probably be posting from a laptop aboard by 60 foot yacht, floating in the South Pacific, just off the coast of Tahiti, sipping rum and smoking a FINE CIGAR.
Fine. Then don't continue to ban smoking outdoors, at places like the park, amusement park, or zoos, ect, ect.... While I still feel it's the right of the business owner to decide, and it's your right to go elsewhere that doesn't allow smoking, I'll gladly concede and "go outside." However; since I've now gone outside, then don't complain!
But that's not compromise!! Don't you get it
Compromise = capitulate to every demand, and then be prepared to bend over backwards on command, then roll over and expose your belley .. then, you'll be acting reasonably, and the leftists may concede your right to remain breathing ... at least for now. But don't be surprised if they find something else annoying about you later on .. cuz there are lots of things they find offensive.
I spent a few days in Las Vegas where smoking was allowed indoors and after two days, I could barely see as my eyes were burning like crazy. Avoiding the smoke was nearly impossible as you were forced to walk through the casinos to get in and out of the hotel Oh, it was so nice to be back in California and have smoke-free air to breathe. So no ... I don't miss the era prior to smoking bans at all
This^^^^ is Hilarius ... you should have booked yourself a gig in Vegas, as a stand up comedian ...
The healthy air of California!!
You just can't make this crap up.
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.
