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.
California? Isn't that the State that everything causes cancer in laboratory rats?
Perhaps, but it's also the state that provides the majority of produce and dairy to the country. In addition, it's also the state that, by itself, would be one of the top 10 economies in the world. It's also the state in which I can be outside all year with beautiful weather.
As much as people can hate on California...I'd still rather be here than anywhere else...except perhaps my native Germany. We may be having problems now, but we will bounce back, of that I have no doubt.
I'll never understand why people find it necessary to make even the slightest association between something like smoking rights and this:
Actually the comparison between anti-smokers and Nazis is not about how the Nazis treated Jews, but rather how Nazis treated smokers. It is a direct apples to apples comparison.
The views of the Nazis on smoking are pretty well documented and I have even heard a few anti-smokers even say things like the Nazis had the potential to save more lives than they ended.
Here is a comedy article that calls the Nazi anti-tobacco "enlightened" without any irony or sarcasm:
And you can cook your hamburgers on your charcoal grill inside as well...oh yea, and make your S'mores inside on your indoor fire pit. These is just as many toxins from wood and charcoal smoke than there are with cigarettes. We shouldn't limit this law to just one type of flammable product.
Why don't it's citizens start voting in people who can actually right the ship?
Never. If a person has been raised to believe in the nanny state, doesn't have the massive amount of wealth saved like Nancy Pelosi, Arnold, etc.., they fear that a limited government, with limited social services, could spell death to them and their family.
I really see their point. Most of the California millionaires and billionaires, many who are in positions of power throughout the state, are totally disconnected with most of the population just trying to make it. Now a large enough % of their population is on cradle to the grave welfare, yet the millionaires and billionaires don't want to really pay their fair share, so they attack the California middle class (which in some areas of the country would be rich). Eventually they may actually snub out smoking, which in turn will mean a huge drop in tobacco taxes. Guess what comes next: Calls for more taxation. They will start taxing "bad food," or if that isn't good enough, just hike income and property taxes even more to make up for what they lost with the tobacco taxes. Oh, another gain will be no more folks dying young of lung cancer. They will live decades long, and thus add another million dollars or so to the Medicaid budget....damn, gonna need even more taxes!!
If I was down on my luck, I would look for a nanny state like California. The draw is clearly the weather and outdoor opportunities. Since many people have moved there over the decades, now you get the benefits that come with large urban centers. So there is a huge draw to the state, especially if your homeless, want to legally smoke dope, like out door recreation, etc.. Unfortunately, wanting stuff usually cost money, and it is much cheaper to the individual if they can get the state to mandate others pay for what you want. So they have a lot of rules and regulations and taxation. Eventually things will get so out-of-control, those who can will flee, leaving the most unproductive, lazy, sick, etc. people in the state. The billionaires and millionaires will flee, or just move their money into low interest investments/off-shore and avoid paying their fair share to keep the ideal socialist society going. This is nothing more than history repeating itself.
And you can cook your hamburgers on your charcoal grill inside as well...oh yea, and make your S'mores inside on your indoor fire pit. These is just as many toxins from wood and charcoal smoke than there are with cigarettes. We shouldn't limit this law to just one type of flammable product.
I always mention this to anti-smokers and the response is either silence or "We are not discussing _________; we are discussing smoking".
But by taking those inconvenient facts into account; they would have to acknowledge two things:
1) The rationale for most anti-smoking legislation could very well be applied to barbeques, the cooking of food (ever live in an apartment building with a neighbor who like to cook cabbage, fish, or curry?), even what type of plants you grow in your property or rental.
2) It is completely about attacking smoking and smokers. Of course they have no intention of targeting other behaviors because it is not smoking.
I always mention this to anti-smokers and the response is either silence or "We are not discussing _________; we are discussing smoking".
2) It is completely about attacking smoking and smokers. Of course they have no intention of targeting other behaviors because it is not smoking.
The idea of banning BBQ/Charcoal grilling and outdoor fire pits will always shut up the anti-smoking folks. These are "good" social activities, and many of them grew up participating in these things. Plus, until the powers that be start attacking the "dangers" of charcoal grilling and wood pit toxicity, these folks will consider it safe. Don't worry though, as the nanny/we are all going to die state continues to grow, people will end up getting attacked for these very behaviors. A neighbor of my parents burned leaves, grass in his yard. Totally legal where they live. Well, an "off" neighbor actually went to a lawyer and had them draft a letter saying that his burning was causing her medical issues with allergies and what not. If the burning didn't cease, she would pursue legal action. Now that the smoking police have complied all these facts about the dangers of toxins released with smoking, they have given these busy bodies the ammo to shut down fire pits, BBQ parties, etc.. First it will start in the parks or common areas, with a handful of people who jog or walk their dogs in the parks suing. Government, not wanting to counter their own "smoke kills" facts, will be forced to severely limit such open burning. Actally, some municipalities in 'free' Indiana already do this: No outdoor burning, none, without approval from the fire chief. Is it enforced, not at all, only if the smoke is really bad, or there is a drought. Will it start being enforced if a busy body calls...you bet. Eventually it will expand to the courtroom, with neighbor suing neighbor.
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.
