Another step towards total control... (regular, crime, cost, county)

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by claudhopper

So be defensive and look both ways. You chose to drive or walk, there is risk in everything you do - that's life. Gov't exists to protect our Consitutional rights and defend this country in the event of attack. Nothing more. The rest is up to you. You are responsible for yourself and your immediate family. You are not responsible for others and the choices they make. That's freedom.

It's not freedom if your smoke blows in my face.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan

Now, stop dodging the question like a goddamned politician and explain why your liberty extends to violating the safety of others.

If I allow little johnny to jump off cliff at the local swimming hole is that putting him in danger and who decides that?

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

There are municipalities that ban smoking on public beaches, park and streets.

There are employers who randomly test their employees for it and if it's positive, you are fired.

Renters are becoming challenged to find housing that will allow smoking.

Many municipalities are considering bans on smoking in any form of attached housing, regardless if the occupant owns or rents.

The anti- smoking thing is likely the most non-partisan initiative, ever.

I wonder how medical and legalized recreational marijuana will play out.

Smoking is a harmful activity. Both to the smokers who don't have the good sense to quit and to those around him who find it necessary to breathe.

Despite this, tobacco is freely and readily available in almost all locales.

They sure like to put on the "persecuted" act, though.

[GregW]

"Persecuted" smokers certainly provide some fine whines.

[Frank DeForrest]

Yeah smokers, quit yer bitchin, you're free to smoke wherever the government gives you permission to!

[Redraven]

I rather thought this would bring out the twisters and spinners in full force. I was right.

For those who just can't seem to grasp the concept, the whole idea was that the government is limiting a LEGAL activity, supposedly to "protect" a segment of society.
If said activity is so very harmful, WHY IS IT STILL LEGAL? Spin it however you wish, it is still illogical! Instead of passing multiple laws making the LEGAL activity illegal here or over there or beside this person or that person, why not make the activity illegal?
Actually, there are a multitude of answers, but few people picked up on them. The tax revenue is, of course, one answer. No government wants to give up that source of revenue, even though as smokers quit or die the pool is drying up. Perhaps new smokers will take up the slack, but "they" say there are not enough new ones to offset the quitters and fatalities.
Then there are the jobs. No state wants to lose the tobacco industry jobs, from the farms to the processing plants. Of course, the farms could be used to grow food for humans and/or livestock, and the plants are a small part of huge corporations and likely could be converted to better uses.
Yes, there are a LOT of reasons why tobacco will never be outlawed. They will just continue making it more difficult to find an "acceptable" place to use the junk.
Government at its silly best.
Too bad sarcasm and cynicism are beyond the ken of so many...

[Old Gringo]

The govt doesn't limit your access to tobacco.

Feel free to light up whenever the urge strikes you.

Just step outside.

It's the law.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

The govt doesn't limit your access to tobacco.

Feel free to light up whenever the urge strikes you.

Just step outside.

It's the law.

Just like a state programmed robot

But if you must step outside because of laws, the government has limited your access

[urbanlife78]

Good for Oregon, this is something children don't have a say in, and people should be ticketed for bad parenting like this and putting their own children at risk.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Good for Oregon, this is something children don't have a say in, and people should be ticketed for bad parenting like this and putting their own children at risk.

Yet the government provides food to children in school because they say there is no food at home.
Why aren't those parents brought up on child abuse charges ? What are those parents doing with the SNAP money ?