U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2014, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,886 posts, read 54,194,416 times
Reputation: 30384

Advertisements

Give it time.

"In 2008, Anne Steinemann of the University of Washington published a study of top-selling air fresheners and laundry products.[8][9] She found that all products tested gave off chemicals regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws, including carcinogens with no safe exposure level, but none of these chemicals were listed on any of the product labels or Material Safety Data Sheets."

Air freshener - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2014, 10:07 PM
 
890 posts, read 2,567,087 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriz View Post
Only difference is no one has proven yet that second hand perfume and body spray can actually kill you.
Neither can secondhand smoke in an apartment building or in an open air park.

And what do you think is "considerate" behavior? If they can't even smoke in their own home, or while strolling in a park, should they be sneaking off to some dirty back alley to smoke a cigarette, an act that is perfectly legal for those over 18?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 08:25 AM
 
221 posts, read 266,374 times
Reputation: 375
I did not mean they cannot smoke in their own home. If you want to smoke behind your own door in that building then that's fine. Otherwise, right outside your home(as long as it is not a building) on your own property(yard, etc) is fine too. And that's it. No where else in public.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 09:15 AM
 
Location: I live wherever I am.
1,935 posts, read 3,742,846 times
Reputation: 3235
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960 View Post
Want a cigarette while you're driving with your kids in the car? Not in Vermont, which is getting ready to implement some of the nation's strictest anti-smoking laws, including a provision that would allow police to pull over anyone seen smoking with young children in the car and fine them $100.

VT anti-smoking law among nation's strictest
If you want a cigarette with your kids in the car, and you choose to smoke one with your kids in the car, you should be tarred, feathered, and hung from a gallows in the public square. Subjecting your innocent kids to your filthy habit and the carcinogenic residue therefrom should be a crime, not just a ticketable offense.

Smoking is a terrible thing to do and if you choose to do it, it should be required that your habit not negatively impact anyone else. That's only fair. Your rights end where my nose begins, because just as you would claim the right to smoke, I claim the right to breathe smoke-free air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 11:37 AM
 
890 posts, read 2,567,087 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
If you want a cigarette with your kids in the car, and you choose to smoke one with your kids in the car, you should be tarred, feathered, and hung from a gallows in the public square. Subjecting your innocent kids to your filthy habit and the carcinogenic residue therefrom should be a crime, not just a ticketable offense.

Smoking is a terrible thing to do and if you choose to do it, it should be required that your habit not negatively impact anyone else. That's only fair. Your rights end where my nose begins, because just as you would claim the right to smoke, I claim the right to breathe smoke-free air.
It's an overreach by government to eliminate or control what is perceived as negative, antisocial behavior. The problem is, those ideas are often driven by advocacy or activist groups, and the media, which loves hot-button issues. While the danger from smoking tobacco/nicotine has a genuine health/scientific component, there is also spurious data out there regarding secondhand smoke that has been distorted and used by those who want to eliminate or control certain behavior. It's ironic to me that the people who are so eager and feverish to constantly "ban" things and control behavior, are often the first to loudly object if there is any encroachment on what they think is acceptable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 08:08 PM
 
Location: I live wherever I am.
1,935 posts, read 3,742,846 times
Reputation: 3235
Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4home View Post
It's an overreach by government to eliminate or control what is perceived as negative, antisocial behavior. The problem is, those ideas are often driven by advocacy or activist groups, and the media, which loves hot-button issues. While the danger from smoking tobacco/nicotine has a genuine health/scientific component, there is also spurious data out there regarding secondhand smoke that has been distorted and used by those who want to eliminate or control certain behavior. It's ironic to me that the people who are so eager and feverish to constantly "ban" things and control behavior, are often the first to loudly object if there is any encroachment on what they think is acceptable.
Find me one adult who has smoked continuously and habitually for at least 20 years and meets all three of these criteria:

1) He/she is addicted to smoking
2) He/she has never tried to quit smoking
3) He/she is glad that he/she started smoking all those years ago, such that he/she would choose to start smoking again if he/she had the opportunity to go back in time and make that choice again

...and I'll shut up about smoking.

Until that time comes, smoking is a disgusting habit which damages the lungs of people who smoke and are continuously exposed to secondhand smoke, and even if you want to say that the evidence against secondhand smoke is dubious, it is irrefutable that cigarette smoke is a very strong-smelling substance which most non-smokers find offensive. Since little children don't have control over their power windows nor do they have much say in the matter over when and where their parents smoke, I say that it should be legislated that smokers who intentionally and inescapably subject non-smokers to smoke can be charged with, at least, a misdemeanor. (I'd love to see it be a crime. You want to smoke? Do it when and where it won't bother nor affect anyone else. Safest bet is to be by yourself, a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest person. Don't like that? Quit smoking. Or at least get an e-cig so that you won't be annoying everyone within 300 feet of you with your foul stench.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,833 posts, read 29,125,211 times
Reputation: 7397
Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4home View Post
It's an overreach by government to eliminate or control what is perceived as negative, antisocial behavior. The problem is, those ideas are often driven by advocacy or activist groups, and the media, which loves hot-button issues. While the danger from smoking tobacco/nicotine has a genuine health/scientific component, there is also spurious data out there regarding secondhand smoke that has been distorted and used by those who want to eliminate or control certain behavior. It's ironic to me that the people who are so eager and feverish to constantly "ban" things and control behavior, are often the first to loudly object if there is any encroachment on what they think is acceptable.

I've never known smoking to be a positive behavior. Nevermind the number of smokers who wind up with terrible health issues further along.

If a smoker wants to greatly increase their chances of dying from one of the following, that's their choice, however a smoker has no right to sicken ANYONE else.




Here's some data from the CDC (difficult to refute and far from spurious) pertaining to second hand smoke:
CDC - Fact Sheet - Secondhand Smoke Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

Do you condone pregnant women smoking or drinking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 08:44 PM
 
221 posts, read 266,374 times
Reputation: 375
I'm still not even sure why smoking is even still legal. I guess it is too late now to change that, though. There would be an uproar by all the addicts. As I have written before in a different thread, I see it simply as a disease, same as drug or alcohol addiction. My wife smokes and yes, she knows my views on it. I see it as a disease, she of course disagrees. Most alcoholics and drug addicts also disagree they have a disease.

Speaking of disgusting behavior. We made the mistake of going to Granby Zoo today up in Quebec. One of the worst zoos I've ever been to. Anyway...they have designated smoking areas there. So what did people do? Sat in those areas with their kids. Even my wife, who like I said is a smoker, thought it was disgusting to see how adults let their kids sit in a smoking area with them, smell their and others smoke, and even let them play with the ashtrays? Really? Talk about sick, quite literally.

I agree with RomaniGypsy. Look, I consider myself 80% libertarian. Where I always said I draw the line about gov intervention and no intervention, is where it could literally, specifically and directly cause physical harm. Smoking, for me, falls into that category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Yakima WA
4,403 posts, read 4,610,677 times
Reputation: 3848
I noticed the states with the strictest anti-tobacco laws are the most liberal on marijuana. The day smoking cigarettes is made illegal in this country will be the same day pot is legalized. I don't smoke either of them but that's the trend i see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2014, 06:05 AM
 
Location: I live wherever I am.
1,935 posts, read 3,742,846 times
Reputation: 3235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F View Post
I noticed the states with the strictest anti-tobacco laws are the most liberal on marijuana. The day smoking cigarettes is made illegal in this country will be the same day pot is legalized. I don't smoke either of them but that's the trend i see.
That may be, but smoking marijuana will be no more "publicly" legalized or accepted than smoking cigarettes. VT may legalize marijuana but it will still be subjected to laws like "no smoking in the car with children", "no smoking within 25 feet of a doorway", "no smoking on public transportation", etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top