Tee hee. Smoking "ban"

Anyone who smokes around their kids and exposes them to cigarette smoke is an awful parent.

 

I could say the same about anyone who takes their kid to eat MacDonalds or raises them Christian.

 

awesome

 

well, then you obviously think second hand smoke isn't harmful. congrats!

 

I would at least roll down the window. Then the kid would get some Taco Bell as a reward.

 

Well aren't we the smug, judgmental type.

 

yeah, i'm in deep trouble for feeding my kid the occasional mcnugget and telling him to love his enemies. i'm a loner, dottie...a rebel.

 

ex-smokers are the worst. jerk needs to get off his high horse. i wonder how many kids he has.

 

I'm an ex smoker and still enjoy the smell of cigarettes.

 

yeah, i have friend who anytime someone lights up, he sneaks over for a whiff. he quit but he does not mind if others smoke. NewYoker, as others have said, is arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

Then outlaw tobacco.. If it is that hazardous why allow it to remain legal at all.

In this country though public health is important but so is allowing people to enjoy themselves and businesses to make a buck off of it. Alcohal is very unhealthy for you so is loud music, fatty foods and hang gliding but all of those are allowed. In the end we seek a reasonable compromise and the compromise to allow some bars to have a smoking license as some bars have a liquor license.

How do you know? Are you aware of somewhere where they have relaxed a blanket smoking ban? I would say that market forces would indicated that now that we've seen what a ban is like many bars won't choose to become smoking again especially if they have to spend more money on a smoking license and increased ventilation. Under your reasoning every restaurant would have a liquor license when that clearly isn't the case.

[quoteAs for being absolutist or ignoring indicators, I hate to tell you this, but the absolutist stance is what's being implemented all over the country. You act like making the drinking age 21 is an absolutist stance. Sure it is. And I fully support it, and I am against drunk driving as well. I guess that makes me absolutist and not open-minded????[/quote]

Actually I saw an article on MSN last week that said that many states are reconsidering the 21 drinking age. So that position isn't as absolutely held as you think.

Regarding people's health you still haven't answered my question whether bars and restaurants should ban open fires as that also is a potential health hazard. And drunk driving isn't the same as smoking but at the same time we do allow alcohal consumption even though that is what leads to drunk driving in the first place. Your argument regarding drunk driving would be condoning lung cancer. I don't deny smoking leads to lung cancer but at the same time alcohal leads to drunk driving so should we ban alcohal then since you are an absolutist when it comes to people's health?

 

I'm glad I can surprise people.
But seriously on a range of issues I hold rather libertarian viewpoint but many of those don't come up.

I don't deny at all that second hand smoke is harmful but its still legal just as alcohal, fatty foods and loud music are legal. I not for no regulation but this is one area where I am against a blanket ban. I also believe that licensing the establishments that have smoking and requiring them to improve thier air circulation is a reasonable compromise.

 

But you don't have to go to a bar that allows smoking.

If you don't like being around drunk people should there then be a blanket ban on drinking just so you can go out and not deal with louts?

But the government does allow people to work with radioactive waste. How do you think radioactive waste is dealt with? Dealing with cigarrette smoke is far easier to deal with than radioactive waste. Just increase air circulation.

 

alcohol -- there are restrictions on what you can do after you've consumed it. but you merely consuming it in my presence doesn't harm me.

fatty foods -- you merely consuming it in my presence doesn't harm me.

loud music -- there are noise ordinances. you do not have an unabridged right to play your music as loud as you want, whereever you want.

none of these carry with them the impact to those around them that merely consuming cigarettes does. i don't see these are analogies to smoking and the effect to those around you that smoking is at all.

 

yet if the government outlawed them you would be healthier, no?

 

^ Does me having a woodburning fire around you harm you? Should wood burning fire places or open grilles in restaurants be banned also?

You are correct there are restrictions on loud music but there isn't blanket bans.. As I said I never said no restrictions on smoking just that there should be a blanket ban.

 

how is that relevant? i'm not calling for an outright ban of tobacco.

 

and there's no blanket ban on smoking. what's being proposed is a ban on smoking in certain establishments within the city of Houston.

 

Consuming meat - directly kills millions of other lives, destroys environment, rain forests, burden on health care, bbq is "smokey"

loud music - some concerts are just about deafening. People have a CHOICE whether to go to those shows, work for them, or stay there.

It's coming. This is just another step.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

Again in the forefront, some areas in California have recently begun making whole cities smoke-free, which would include every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California have passed park and beach smoking bans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/LegalCenter/story?id=2949708

California Town May Snub Out Smoking at Home


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061023/ai_n16799662
Some cities move to curb smoking at home