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.
Yep, and to respectfully add to what you have said, my stance is that non-smokers have the right to breathe in what is universally considered to be vital to life, that is, clean-air. And more-over, that those who are victims of second-hand smoke should have legal recourse so that they no longer have to be victims of second-hand smoke. What could and does happen to victims of second-hand smoke is that as their medical problems become more and more compromised from exposure to second-hand smoke, their ability to fight is compromised. The really sad cases are when their own "loved ones" are killing them. This is why it is very easy for me to view smokers as people who literally do not care about how they harm others. It is not only strangers to whom they do harm, and, granted, it is human nature to be virtually lacking in concern for strangers, but smokers thrust their life-destroying activity upon their own dear ones. My concern, however, is for all victims, not only high-risk people who suffer, such as children and the elderly. The irony is that even this very same high-risk segment are also ones who don't have as much legal recourse by virtue of their marginalized status in society. Smokers can just join in and invalidate them in the same way as society in general tends to.
So, if thier own loved ones do not care about their compromised immune system and contribution of the deterioration of their health, how will the statist government enforcement work out?
Tell me this, are there any current laws on the books restricting behavior in private dwellings? Now, I am not talking about physical harm or moral harm, the "crime" that you suggest qualifies for neither. Would you consider this a crime against society? If so then justify the violation of a persons security. How do you suggest the government regulates smoking in a dwelling without violating a persons fourth and seventh amendment rights?
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.
"and you keep all of the windows closed while smoking". I don't think so. The problem then becomes do you subject people out side the building to your smoke, or just enable the smoke to become more concentrated by not having an open window to drift out of, thereby giving the smoke, one major area of permeation, the hallways, via cracks, and vents, etc. There is no remedy for second-hand smoke other than for smokers to not smoke.
"and there are no people under the age of 18 in the dwelling", and therefore, only people who are over the age of 18 become victimized? People who are of any age should be afforded the same right as people who are deemed part of the "high-risk" group, such as children and elderly. That is the problem with legally categorizing certain people into a class which might be more protected, while none should have to be the victim of second-hand smoke.
I had a condo that had been converted from rental apartments. Cooking odors or cigarette smoke from a neighbour in your building would inevitably find its way into your condo. I was so glad that I did not have neighbours that smoked, and if I had, I would have moved, that's all there is to it. I think ultimately more condo buildings are going to become smoke-free, if there are enough buyers who want that.
I thought that the term "miscreant" had a certain old-fashioned ring to it. Kind of like how some smokers prefer the old-fashioned filter-less cigarettes to the more modern one. Actually, the term "miscreant" runs a full gamut of perjorative meaning, even encroaching upon religious beliefs. I mean it in the sense as "danger to society". My sincere apologies if you took it to mean something worse than that.
"and you keep all of the windows closed while smoking". I don't think so. The problem then becomes do you subject people out side the building to your smoke, or just enable the smoke to become more concentrated by not having an open window to drift out of, thereby giving the smoke, one major area of permeation, the hallways, via cracks, and vents, etc. There is no remedy for second-hand smoke other than for smokers to not smoke.
"and there are no people under the age of 18 in the dwelling", and therefore, only people who are over the age of 18 become victimized? People who are of any age should be afforded the same right as people who are deemed part of the "high-risk" group, such as children and elderly. That is the problem with legally categorizing certain people into a class which might be more protected, while none should have to be the victim of second-hand smoke.
I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.. Apparently America and the respect of individual liberties aren't for you. Remember, sooner or later they'll propose banning an activity in which you partake in or enjoy.
I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.. Apparently America and the respect of individual liberties aren't for you. Remember, sooner or later they'll propose banning an activity in which you partake in or enjoy.
Yes, but they don't have hot snow and eat yommy birds on Tuesday's like we do.
So, if thier own loved ones do not care about their compromised immune system and contribution of the deterioration of their health, how will the statist government enforcement work out?
Tell me this, are there any current laws on the books restricting behavior in private dwellings? Now, I am not talking about physical harm or moral harm, the "crime" that you suggest qualifies for neither. Would you consider this a crime against society? If so then justify the violation of a persons security. How do you suggest the government regulates smoking in a dwelling without violating a persons fourth and seventh amendment rights?
Here, in my response to your post, I am addressing the issues around only victims of second-hand smoke who are close to the smoker, as they are they are the only ones about whom you mentioned in your comment.
The issue is that the "loved ones" who are the victims of second-hand smoke are often so highly enmeshed and/or invested in their relationship to the smoker that they have fallen into the exact same self-destructive patterns as the significant others of other dysfunctional people. Especially since second-hand smoke is still not considered as life-threatening as other forms of assault, the victims of second-hand smoke relative "silence" is seen as complicity, or, neutrality and/or their complaints are marginalized Their suffering has therefore not yet reached the public forums (IRL and virtual) to the extent that victims of domestic battering, childhood sexual abuse, for example, have.
The fact is that the effects of second-hand smoke do constitute a "crime", the crime of assault. So far, this specific type of crime of assault is only vaguely recognized by our legal system, and is seems that it has been viewed more as a moral/ethical transgression than what could constitute a valid legal transgression.
Along these lines, if you light up a cigarette and if the person who is in close enough proximity to breathe it in feels any negative reaction to your smoke ----- and makes you aware of this -------- and you keep smoking, then you are a willing perpetrator. Even if I were not a victim myself of second-hand smoke I would see this as a breech of non-smokers civil rights. I understood this when I was a smoker myself. In time, smoking will become an exclusive privilege for those rich enough to live away from the rest of society.
I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.. Apparently America and the respect of individual liberties aren't for you. Remember, sooner or later they'll propose banning an activity in which you partake in or enjoy.
Why are your "individual liberties' more important than mine? It sounds as if you think that only certain people should be allowed to fully enjoy their freedoms, and that others should have to pay all kinds of consequences for living in the USA. I think the term for that is "elitism" and/or "entitlement". These do not sound like personal qualities upon which the principles of American freedom were built on. The way things stand currently, smokers are effectively "banning" me from enjoying the benefits of good health. Have you considered moving to North Korea?
You may or may not have understood my position. I don't think that a victim of second-hand smoke
A dead giveaway to a shrill, bugeyed, fist-in-the-air whiner who wants to interrupt, hassle, and injure members of some chosen group (smokers in this case).
Time to file this thread under "Life's too short to deal with idiots".
So, if thier own loved ones do not care about their compromised immune system and contribution of the deterioration of their health, how will the statist government enforcement work out?
Tell me this, are there any current laws on the books restricting behavior in private dwellings? Now, I am not talking about physical harm or moral harm, the "crime" that you suggest qualifies for neither. Would you consider this a crime against society? If so then justify the violation of a persons security. How do you suggest the government regulates smoking in a dwelling without violating a persons fourth and seventh amendment rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokersaremiscreants
Here, in my response to your post, I am addressing the issues around only victims of second-hand smoke who are close to the smoker, as they are they are the only ones about whom you mentioned in your comment.
The issue is that the "loved ones" who are the victims of second-hand smoke are often so highly enmeshed and/or invested in their relationship to the smoker that they have fallen into the exact same self-destructive patterns as the significant others of other dysfunctional people. Especially since second-hand smoke is still not considered as life-threatening as other forms of assault, the victims of second-hand smoke relative "silence" is seen as complicity, or, neutrality and/or their complaints are marginalized Their suffering has therefore not yet reached the public forums (IRL and virtual) to the extent that victims of domestic battering, childhood sexual abuse, for example, have.
The fact is that the effects of second-hand smoke do constitute a "crime", the crime of assault. So far, this specific type of crime of assault is only vaguely recognized by our legal system, and is seems that it has been viewed more as a moral/ethical transgression than what could constitute a valid legal transgression.
Along these lines, if you light up a cigarette and if the person who is in close enough proximity to breathe it in feels any negative reaction to your smoke ----- and makes you aware of this -------- and you keep smoking, then you are a willing perpetrator. Even if I were not a victim myself of second-hand smoke I would see this as a breech of non-smokers civil rights. I understood this when I was a smoker myself. In time, smoking will become an exclusive privilege for those rich enough to live away from the rest of society.
First of all, you start a thread stating that you want the government to make smoking inside dwellings illegal. Then, you make several posts throughout, many of which I respond to, to no avail. Secondly, you actually do reply to my post and refuse to address the methodology and justification of government intervention in controlling said behavior in the dwelling. As I have posted before, where does this intervention end? If smoking in ones home constitutes a crime, then persons and dwelling are subject to search and seizure without a warrant. How would this be monitored? What other behaviors could be considered assault by statists like yourself? Assault is a physical action. Let's see if I can come up with some other behaviors that fit your version of assault. How about if, a person with respiratory problems lived with a loved one that was an obsessive user of Glade sprays and candles? That is rather suffocating and will affect the air quality. Should the government step in and deem that assault as well? Same situation, different toxin.
For you to compare or even attempt to put someone being exposed to second-hand smoke to child sexual abuse is appalling. But let's humor you for a second, all persons that are in any type of abusive relationship make the active choice to stay in that relationship. Their reasons are different, but they are staying for a reason. Have you ever worked with battered women? I have, actually, that's kind of my field, and let me tell you, until they are ready to leave on their own free will, they will keep going back willingly despite what waits for them.
Your posts indicate that A) You are a former smoker, B) You have medical issues, and C) Now you are in poor health due to the choices that you made or at the very least the condition has been exasperated by it and now you are mad at the world. The result: you have become a statist that believes that the government should make people not do things that you don't like.
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.
. Apparently America and the respect of individual liberties aren't for you. Remember, sooner or later they'll propose banning an activity in which you partake in or enjoy.
