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.
I realize you say it is a right for smokers to smoke in a hut on a desert island. But from what I've seen you don't support the right of a business owner to allow their business to be smoking, or to let people in a cigar shop smoke in the shop, or to allow an apartment landlord to let people smoke in his apartments, etc. So while I recognize and appreciate that you don't want to ban smoking entirely I still think your restrictions cross the line into being an infringement on our guaranteed freedoms as Americans. I think it is fine to ban smoking in public, fine for a business owner to ban smoking in his business, fine for smoking to be banned in an apartment or condo complex if the owner wants that - but not fine for a government ban on any of those things.
Let me be a bit more detailed in my position. My position is that smokers are free to smoke anywhere they wish, as long as they don't inflict their nicotine-laden smoke on others. How it is accomplished, I am not sure, but in a civilized society where the overwhelming majority of people are not hooked, certain changes need be made. Smokers, by and largge, in my considerable experience, don't seem to give a damn about the pain and misery they inflict on others.
I have no problem with people being able to smoke in cigar shops, tobacco shops etc., for to go into such a place implies consent to being exposed to tobacco smoke. Designed smoking places ditto. However, in other areas, I hold that no business owner has the legal or moral right to waive a patrons right to not be so exposed, so assaulted.
There are plenty of options available, but the first step is respecting the right of the non-smoker NOT to be assaulted with toxin-laden smoke. To a smoker, such smoke is manna from heaven. Toi everyone else, is is airborne sewerage, plus toxic.
No, I quit a while back. Then I became disabled. A couple months into that I tried a friend's ecig just to see what it was like. I found it helped so much with dealing with being newly disabled. I was long, long off the nicotine habit but the old familiar routine of just going through the smoking motions itself was such a comfort and stress relief during a really rough patch. I've been getting my own ecigs ever since. It's one of the few true pleasures I have now that I'm house-bound and I can now smoke guilt free. The ecig "smoke" is just vapor so it dissipates indoors without leaving any stains or smell.
I am sorry to hear of your disability, but your contribution to this forum is much appreciated.
Yes, the ecigs are a wonderful invention, but of course they want to ban them too. Apparently they want us stressed, fat and miserable.
This is no conservative, this is a typical liberal progressive or communista you are engaging with. I don't know why this thread wasn't locked a long time ago. It's pointless to keep feeding this troll.
Are you kidding me? Robin is as conservative as they come, or at least they claim to be... heck, her (his?) status line was even anti-liberal for a long time. Still is, if you read between the lines. So while they might not be acting like a conservative, they most certainly do identify as one. And I identify as a liberal Libertarian, so you also cannot say this is typical liberal behavior either. Guess it's just Robin behavior, lol.
I am sorry to hear of your disability, but your contribution to this forum is much appreciated.
Yes, the ecigs are a wonderful invention, but of course they want to ban them too. Apparently they want us stressed, fat and miserable.
Just for the record, so to speak, I am not in favor of banning real or "e" cigs.
Glad you mentioned "legal substance". I mean to bring it up, bacause it is so lamely bashed about as if that fact is actually relevant to the discussion.
Lots of things are "legal". Whisky is legal, wine, spirits, beer etc., Having sexual relations is too (among adults etc).
That is NOT to say that you can just go and boff your girlfriend anywhere you want. Or that you can, or should, be legally able to walk down a street drinking form a bottle of Gentleman Jack.
The point is that things that are legal are, and properly are, regulated with regards to the places they can, and places they cannot, be engaged in.
Ergo, the right to use tobacco (which I support) is, and is properly, subject to similar restrictions. Restrictions, that I assure you, are coming down the pike
I never said the freedom to smoke comes without restrictions, in fact I mentioned those restrictions right in my post... so why isn't that enough for you? Maybe things are looser where you live, but around here you practically have to be smoking in a bubble for it to be allowed (even then somebody will complain, like that car example I gave earlier). Enough is enough! Either ban it outright, or leave us alone with the current regulations.
I never said the freedom to smoke comes without restrictions, in fact I mentioned those restrictions right in my post... so why isn't that enough for you? Maybe things are looser where you live, but around here you practically have to be smoking in a bubble for it to be allowed (even then somebody will complain, like that car example I gave earlier). Enough is enough! Either ban it outright, or leave us alone with the current regulations.
I never said the freedom to smoke comes without restrictions, in fact I mentioned those restrictions right in my post... so why isn't that enough for you? Maybe things are looser where you live, but around here you practically have to be smoking in a bubble for it to be allowed (even then somebody will complain, like that car example I gave earlier). Enough is enough! Either ban it outright, or leave us alone with the current regulations.
I have slept on the issue, and, in the face of the absolute intransigence of the addict-class, have decided that the only way to protect society is the outright ban, and will work in other channels to effect such change.
I have slept on the issue, and, in the face of the absolute intransigence of the addict-class, have decided that the only way to protect society is the outright ban, and will work in other channels to effect such change.
It is sad that it has come to this, but it has.
And I'll work to fight it. You're free to impose your silly little nanny state laws in your state. Keep them out of mine!
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.
