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.
Smoking has been reduced to roughly 25% of the population due to strict no smoking rules and increased taxation.
So...how many of you have received a tax rebate for the money "saved" by discouraging smoking? How many have received a refund from your health insurance provider? Since less people now smoke, health care costs must have come down and the savings should be yours, right?
Let me guess....none of you. And, you won't receive a refund or rebate when other behaviors you disapprove of are curtailed in the same manner either.
Consequently, that old excuse of "I don't want a pay for you doing (fill in the blank)" doesn't wash. It's a red herring.
I received a tax rebate last year.
So there goes that whole argument.
A public place is anywhere it's likely someone would go during the course of their day. Nobody has the right to take public places and render then unusable by other people. Cigarette smoke has been well documented to be a health risk so that's basically what you would be doing. Smoking is just one of those things you do in your own space. I guess it's a good thing was never declared illegal...it happened with pot and even alcohol at one point.
Your definition of a public place is broad enough to include just about the whole world.
In any case, while tobacco smoke may be dangerous (though no more so than many other things you're exposed to in public places), you must admit that incidental exposure in minute amounts isn't going to kill you any more than will incidental exposure to the smell of someone's deodorant or perfume, both of which are also comprised of many dangerous chemicals which you inhale as you pass by.
So, what's the reason for targeting cigarette smoke and and not other things? What else can it be but intolerance based upon fear or personal preference, undergirded by smoking no longer being socially acceptable?
If you truly want to be protected from everything you smell in public places which might be dangerous to you, where is the stopping point? Once cigarette smoke has been banned from public spaces, what's next? Ban automobiles from the streets? Close down power plants and refineries miles away because the smell carries downwind to some public place?
See, the list of dangerous or offensive substances in the air is almost limitless and if you're not willing to deal with those others too, your prejudice against smokers is showing.
I still contend that a little tolerance for others would go a long, long way in rectifying many of the things which divide us in this country and a good place to start would be with smokers.
If you research the topic, you will discover that exhaled tobacco smoke DOES indeed effect the health of those around you. Second hand smoke is link to cancer and death.
Now, if you want to chew the stuff -- and dispose of the toxic waste in a manner that others are exposed to it, by all means -- it's your life, but no butts, please.
See I don't mind your way of life ither. You don't partake in these activities and only see a problem if they affect you, and that's fine. But your not trying to go so far as to ban smoking overall. I can respect that.
If you want to smoke, fine with me. Just do it in a place (your own home?) where second hand smoke is not an issue for anyone else.
Dont you know that it is the " liberal progressives" that are suppose to be able to make the choice on how we live our life. They cant accept that some like to smoke or drink or whatever but you must accept all the things they want you to accept.
They tell us when it comes to gays live and let live ( which I happen to agree with ) but for them that is only a slogan they dont mean it. Because smokers or people who tan or do something they dont find acceptable it is no longer live and let live its. I think that is wrong so you shouldnt do it and I support taxing you into stopping. Now if there was a proposed tax say to be gay they would have a serious problem with that.
Or a tax for say recycling they would have a serious problem.
I still contend that a little tolerance for others would go a long, long way in rectifying many of the things which divide us in this country and a good place to start would be with smokers.
Not tolerance...
More like common courtesy is needed among both non-smokers and smokers. I'm sure many smokers have been ordered to put out their cigarettes without so much as a "please" or "thank you" by non-smokers. And many non-smokers, after asking politely, have been told to "go f themselves" or "it's a free country" by smokers.
It's this loss of courtesy that has made legislation possible, maybe even necessary.
He can smoke outside, as long as his second hand smoke does not affect anyone else. That's the bottom line - if the noxious smoke from your cigarette drifts into someone else's airspace, sorry, you have to put it out.
It is your choice to gamble with your health. You are not allowed to impose that choice on me.
Every time the issue of second hand smoke comes up, I have to mention the people that must BATHE in their perfume or cologne. It makes me nauseous and a bit of a headache--but I defend those people's rights to continue to do so--if that's what makes them happy. Even as it makes me ill.
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.
