TexasCHLforum.com

KD5NRH wrote:

jmra wrote:I have no problem with someone smoking on their private property. I do have a right not to have smoke blown in my face in a public place.

You have a right to not associate with minorities. Try demanding that someone else enforce that right for you by kicking them out of a public place and see how far it goes.

Again that is apples and oranges. Not even close to the same. Comparing smoking to someones skin color is pure stupidity.

This thread is absolutely hilarious to me.

Props to all involved...I hope this doesn't get locked or regulated because this is the most entertaining debate I've seen online in a while.

I don't think there should be an outright ban on smoking.. Just some thoughtful things to go along with smoking.. Smokers should be required to carry a life insurance policy that covers long-term disability, and have full coverage health insurance on themselves at all times or be fined for failure to maintain insurance.

Smoking should not be allowed in any public venue where non-smokers might come in contact with the fumes, or with items that may have tobacco remnants on them.

A portion of all sales of cigarette products should be withheld from each pack sold to be used towards the prevention of lung cancer (duh! Quit smoking!). This will drive the price of cigarettes even higher than they are now.

If you attempt to sell your car to someone, and you are a smoker, it should be required by law that you sign a disclosure stating that the car has been smoked in. That way a non-smoker may choose to not purchase your vehicle, and expose themselves and their kids to the nicotine remnants.

Likewise, if you sell your home it should be required that you disclose whether or not the home has been smoked in. You can NEVER get all of the smoke out of an A/C or heater system & duct work unless you rip all of it out, and replace it. Same with carpet. Same with drapes.

Any person receiving ANY type of state or governmental support (including unemployment), food-stamps, or are behind in child support payments, should not be allowed to smoke until they can afford to pay for those cigarettes on THEIR dime, not the tax-payers.

Any adult smoking in the presence of a minor child should be fined, and then forced to seek counseling on smoking cessation (court mandated). Further fines for the same offense should double, and then triple, etc;

My mother, at present, is dying from lung cancer. I have 3 brothers and she smoked while we were babies, up till the point we all moved out. None of us feel bad for her situation. She has COPD, has Bronchitis, has to be on oxygen just to get around. We all told her how much we hated her smoking around us when we were kids. None of us kids are smokers.

Any person who could look at my mother now, and then go on smoking-well.. Let's just say you'd be better off putting a pistol to your head right now, than leaving your family to care for you once you reach my moms condition. And you WILL reach her condition if you keep smoking. You can kid yourself that it won't happen to you-my mom always did-but in the end, tobacco is going to kill you.

It SHOULD be a good deterrent, but it's been my experience that smokers don't want to think about tomorrow, they just want to enjoy that puff of personal pleasure today. Similar to gamblers, and drug addicts, it's just a selfish way of life. Smokers aren't thinking about anyone else, but themselves, and I'd argue they aren't even concerned about themselves because if they were-they'd quit. Now.

I just dont get why people smoke? Whats the point?

I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.

ifanyonecan wrote:I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.

Lets think of it like this, if I had nuclear Waste facility next door and they were doing a poor job of keeping the public shielded from Nuclear Waste, I shouldnt have to sue them, they should be doing everything possible to keep me from being harmed.
Same thing with Smoking.
if Second and Third hand smoke are that dangerous, it only makes sense to limit the exposure to the public (The whole my rights end where your nose begins thing)

marksiwel wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.

Lets think of it like this, if I had nuclear Waste facility next door and they were doing a poor job of keeping the public shielded from Nuclear Waste, I shouldnt have to sue them, they should be doing everything possible to keep me from being harmed.
Same thing with Smoking.
if Second and Third hand smoke are that dangerous, it only makes sense to limit the exposure to the public (The whole my rights end where your nose begins thing)

I disagree. I think it would be a better system in which the people would bring suits against the facility, get money, and force them, financially, to make the changes. Making it criminal means the government now has a large, wasteful department to monitor and fine nuclear waste facilities, and it restricts the free market by requiring extra personnel at the plant to take care of the inevitable stack of paperwork and records they'll need to keep.

I have a problem with current Americans' habit of taking every problem they have with their everyday life to the government. There are lots of bad things, but they don't all need to be illegal or regulated.

I don't know if Kawabuggy was intending to be satirical, but you could take his list and substitute "guns" for "smoking" and have a reasonable facsimile of "reasonable gun control" that has actually been proposed.

ifanyonecan wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.

Lets think of it like this, if I had nuclear Waste facility next door and they were doing a poor job of keeping the public shielded from Nuclear Waste, I shouldnt have to sue them, they should be doing everything possible to keep me from being harmed.
Same thing with Smoking.
if Second and Third hand smoke are that dangerous, it only makes sense to limit the exposure to the public (The whole my rights end where your nose begins thing)

I disagree. I think it would be a better system in which the people would bring suits against the facility, get money, and force them, financially, to make the changes. Making it criminal means the government now has a large, wasteful department to monitor and fine nuclear waste facilities, and it restricts the free market by requiring extra personnel at the plant to take care of the inevitable stack of paperwork and records they'll need to keep.

I have a problem with current Americans' habit of taking every problem they have with their everyday life to the government. There are lots of bad things, but they don't all need to be illegal or regulated.

Whats the name of the Large Goverment Anti-Smoking Department?
Suing people for getting Lung Cancer ,when you could have just prevented it seems wastefull.
Alot of Business would go smoke free on their own, or go out of business all together.

marksiwel wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.

Lets think of it like this, if I had nuclear Waste facility next door and they were doing a poor job of keeping the public shielded from Nuclear Waste, I shouldnt have to sue them, they should be doing everything possible to keep me from being harmed.
Same thing with Smoking.
if Second and Third hand smoke are that dangerous, it only makes sense to limit the exposure to the public (The whole my rights end where your nose begins thing)

I disagree. I think it would be a better system in which the people would bring suits against the facility, get money, and force them, financially, to make the changes. Making it criminal means the government now has a large, wasteful department to monitor and fine nuclear waste facilities, and it restricts the free market by requiring extra personnel at the plant to take care of the inevitable stack of paperwork and records they'll need to keep.

I have a problem with current Americans' habit of taking every problem they have with their everyday life to the government. There are lots of bad things, but they don't all need to be illegal or regulated.

Whats the name of the Large Goverment Anti-Smoking Department?
Suing people for getting Lung Cancer ,when you could have just prevented it seems wastefull.
Alot of Business would go smoke free on their own, or go out of business all together.

That would be the much-loved ATF. /sarcasm

What you're saying about businesses going smoke-free on their own is exactly what I picture in my ideal style of government and economics. A pure libertarian, capitalist society would be self-regulating, and, if society feels smoking should be stopped or slowed, business would respond with bans. As it became more inconvenient to smoke, people would do it less. It's my personal belief and opinion that it should not be a crime to smoke in public. It would be like criminalizing public coughs from people getting second-hand germs, or worse, HIV should the saliva have some blood in it and contact the victim's bodily fluids, such as an open cut.

I realize my hopes will not happen in America or any other country most likely. But they are simply an opinion, and I don't intend to flame or upset you in any way.

Why would anyone want to shoot or own guns?

I just don't get it.

Abraham wrote:Why would anyone want to shoot or own guns?

I just don't get it.

I like this. It goes with the post earlier saying to change smoking to guns in Kawabuggy's post. It really puts things in a different light.

EDIT: deleted redundant "earlier" in sentence 2.

So those little signs don't just ban smoking. They ban concealed carry of cigarettes.

Trinitite wrote:So those little signs don't just ban smoking. They ban concealed carry of cigarettes.

I always keep one strapped to my ankle as a backup.

EDIT: Also, you never know when you'll get a nicotine craving. Carry 24/7 or guess right.

If you're going to drink, leave the cigarettes at home. Even one drop of alcohol makes it illegal to smoke.