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.
On the contrary, this has absolutely nothing to do with health. It is entirely about control. Anchorage, AK, banned smoking in city parks a few years ago, but they did not ban barbecuing. Which means you can stand over a barbecue and get a face full of toxic carcinogenic smoke and that is okay, but if you light up a cigarette you will be fined.
The OP's nick says it all. Fascists like that should be locked in a small room with dozens of chain smokers.
I would like to see a statewide public smoking ban. You should be permitted to smoke in a multi-unit dwelling, as long as you own the unit and there are no people under the age of 18 in the dwelling, and you keep all of the windows closed while smoking, and keep the inner hallway door closed while smoking and one hour thereafter. It would have to be a dwelling with a non-central heat and A/C system as well (no central vents). You also have to seal the cracks on the top and bottom of the hall door with a material impervious to smoke. Under those circumstances, smoking should be allowed in the multi-building dwelling.
There are plenty of avenues for landlords and tenants to contract about smoking, where it will be allowed and penalties. I fail to see why this needs to be a law.
It needs to be a law because apparently smokers are incapable of thinking about, or, being concerned about the damage that they are doing to innocent bystanders; however, I introduced this topic because as a victim of second-hand smoke, I would like the other victims of second-hand smoke to know that there are more and more people who are fighting to make it illegal for smokers to take unwilling hostages. Not all victims of second-hand smoke can, or, want to be involved with what is, indisputably, a controversial topic; some victims of second-hand smoke are people who shun the spot-light, or, more accurately, don't want to put themselves in the line of fire, and be the "bad guy". However, I wonder why this topic is so controversial. I guess decades ago it was a controversial idea for landlords to have to make sure that there were no gas-leaks, lead-chips, etc. Its all relative. My idea is that there should be a law like this so that the smokers themselves ---- not everyone else ------ pay the consequences for their actions. I don't see any difference between passing a law like this and passing other health-protecting laws which protect citizens, nationally, from life-threatening substances caused by people who don't care about human life.
It needs to be a law because apparently smokers are incapable of thinking about, or, being concerned about the damage that they are doing to innocent bystanders; however, I introduced this topic because as a victim of second-hand smoke, I would like the other victims of second-hand smoke to know that there are more and more people who are fighting to make it illegal for smokers to take unwilling hostages. Not all victims of second-hand smoke can, or, want to be involved with what is, indisputably, a controversial topic; some victims of second-hand smoke are people who shun the spot-light, or, more accurately, don't want to put themselves in the line of fire, and be the "bad guy". However, I wonder why this topic is so controversial. I guess decades ago it was a controversial idea for landlords to have to make sure that there were no gas-leaks, lead-chips, etc. Its all relative. My idea is that there should be a law like this so that the smokers themselves ---- not everyone else ------ pay the consequences for their actions. I don't see any difference between passing a law like this and passing other health-protecting laws which protect citizens, nationally, from life-threatening substances caused by people who don't care about human life.
All I hear is blah blah blah waaaaaaaaaaa blah blah blah.
People in this thread can not understand that you can't just do everything you please without the consequences affecting bystanders. And some of you libertarians have said it yourself, "Let everyone do what they want as long as they don't hurt others or their property without their consent." is the theme among your posts, mostly related to the drug debate.
I think that people should be able to do what they like, but not at my expense <----This is the qualifying issue. Second-hand smoke from weed is as devastating to some people as smoke from cigarettes/pipes/cigars. I have a very bad reaction to second-hand smoke from weed, as do others, including the smoke from such which permeates in an apartment building. As you probably know, you are not only lighting-up THC-component in pot, but all of the chemicals your supply might be laced with. Air is neccessary for human life and whatever/whomever interferes with its availability to the general public should have to incur a legal penalty. I am as one-tracked and dogmatic as the smokers are, in my beliefs, except that I don't have to defend my actions. I am not the instigator of the problem.
Marajuana would be included in this. Just because it's ok to use it somewhere doesn't mean it's ok to smoke it anywhere you want. It's no different than tobacco in that sense. Although you can ingest pot other ways that would be perfectly fine since nobody else is bothered by it.
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.
No smoking in your condo!
