Guest markham51 Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 That's not the point....................I too am a non-smoker and it's nice to go into a place and not smell like an ash tray when you leave, the point here is individual freedoms. Everytime we ban something we lose alittle bit of our individual freedoms. If you can get the right people on your side and enough money you can get anything banned, for example, lawn darts, three-wheelers, etc. And of course you say "well those things are/were dangerous". Just walking out of your house is dangerous, a frozen turd from outer space could hit you in the head and kill you, probably never happen but it could. Just because you don't do a certain activity that doesn't mean nobody else shouldn't be able to do it. Take, as an example, golf........I don't golf.......I think it's a rich man's sport and a terrible waste of natural reasourses, should it be banned.......of course not. News papers..................outdated and again a waste of natural reasourses, should we ban it?. The US mail system......we have e-mail, use that only. And of course the one we can all relate to, SUPERCHARGERS AND TURBO's. why do we need them?, the speed limit is 55-or 65, cars should only be made to go that fast, well, maybe that will happen now that the government owns GM. And the list goes on, so just remember, everytime something is banned you lose alittle bit of personal freedom, no matter what it is....good or bad. Your argument doesn't make any sense. Second hand smoke is a health hazzard, they aren't banning it because it smells bad. Non smokers already pay billions each year for smoking related illnesses treatment of smokers (through their health care premiums.) Both my mother and my wife's father died of emphysema (burned out smokers lungs). Both smoked until almost the day they died and walked around for years with oxygen tanks, what a terrible death. 80pct of the adult population shouldn't have to suffer so that the other 20 pct can kill themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 What about my right to not smell another's cigarette? I hate having to walk a gauntlet of smoke to enter a public building. How's that for losing a freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 What about my right to not smell another's cigarette? I hate having to walk a gauntlet of smoke to enter a public building. How's that for losing a freedom? I agree Doc...I never did smoke and there were places I never would go because of people smoking...And what about the kids that can't make that decision on their own so they get their lungs polluted...So where is their freedom...Ban the damn stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 What about my right to not smell another's cigarette? I hate having to walk a gauntlet of smoke to enter a public building. How's that for losing a freedom? I will try to put this into what I want to say........................ I see your Point as well but that is not the Point "stormeaston" was making. I hate the smell also and perfer NOT to be around it, plus it kicks up my Asthma. It's a "Catch 22" You have the Right to Smoke BUT, I have the Right to have Clean Air around Me. Personally, I feel that the Restaurant OWNER, should have the Right to allow people to Smoke in His/Her Place of Business and if I don't like it, I go eat some where else. The Government should NOT have the Right to tell the Business Owner that No One can Smoke in His/Her place of Business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump_breaker Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Personally, I feel that the Restaurant OWNER, should have the Right to allow people to Smoke in His/Her Place of Business.... I have such a hard time with this one as I despise government intervention but giving the deadly nature of the subject, something needs to be done. Cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen and should be treated as such. You don't see store owners spraying benzene or asbestos around nor should they have the choice to do so. They are not allowed to mix bleach and ammonia to use as a cleaning agent since this can make mustard (chlorine) gas. Maybe they should be allowed to pipe car exhaust into the building and paint it with lead based paint as well? I know it sounds silly but it's all the same. There needs to be regulation on a product that is blatantly dangerous to all involved be it directly or indirectly. Having said that though, taxing smokes is nothing but government greed. If they are truly going to do something in the name of public health, they need to take another route and outlaw them altogether. Or make smokers get smokers insurance and they are not allowed to purchase them unless they show proof. Heck they do it cars and those things will kill you a lot quicker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormeaston Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Your argument doesn't make any sense. Second hand smoke is a health hazzard, they aren't banning it because it smells bad. Non smokers already pay billions each year for smoking related illnesses treatment of smokers (through their health care premiums.) Both my mother and my wife's father died of emphysema (burned out smokers lungs). Both smoked until almost the day they died and walked around for years with oxygen tanks, what a terrible death. 80pct of the adult population shouldn't have to suffer so that the other 20 pct can kill themselves. Of course it dosen't make sense to you.............your from Canadaaaaa, read it again, it dosen't say "I like second hand smoke and it shouldn't be banned" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2kmelat Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 i guess they sould tax the hell out of beer and any foods that have chemical in them and stop drive our cars. hell just let the goverment tell us how to live are lives. oh ya they already are. just because u dont like it dosent mean other people cant enjoy it. we are loosing more of are freedom every day and people dont see it. its a little bit at a time. when the goverment puts the cigerets bussiness out more people out of work. just what we need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Of course it dosen't make sense to you.............your from Canadaaaaa, read it again, it dosen't say "I like second hand smoke and it shouldn't be banned" Of course it doesn't make sense to you your're from Canada WTF does that got to do with what is being talked about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT/SC2873 Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 I still say pot will be cheaper! Here's my point.....they are taxing the hell out of cigs to do what....pay for low income health care. Has anyone done a study on what the gross income of smokers are? I bet you and I both would be shocked to see the large percentage of low income smokers. So I guess if they keep smoking, they are paying for their new health care plan. What a great country! Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastersmech1 Posted April 4, 2009 Report Share Posted April 4, 2009 Stop smoking and lower your medical costs and quit choking my a$$ with that nasty a$$ offensive smoke. If you can't quit, wear a bag on your head while you smoke so none gets away. You paid for it, you keep it...ALL OF IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiaCobra Posted April 4, 2009 Report Share Posted April 4, 2009 Sorry but i'm taking the "I don't need the government taking away my personal choices and freedoms". I'm a non smoker. I want the '70's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.