no smoking anywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[killemall]

Smoking Is Healthier Than Fascism




The regulation of the personal habit of smoking, including new legislative moves in San Francisco to ban cigarettes in private homes, and its enforcement by an eager cadre of state snoops and snitches, represents nothing more than a move on behalf of big brother towards the complete subjugation and shackling of the individual. To this end, smoking is healthier than fascism.

[Strider]

As a smoker, I despise anti-smoking laws with a vengeance. But to pull out the f-word is, shall we say, pushing it.

[General Zod]

As a smoker, I despise anti-smoking laws with a vengeance. But to pull out the f-word is, shall we say, pushing it.

If it's not fascism,then what?

[Goodieluver]

Hasnt america learned that banning something the public wants will only cause it to increase illegally?

Ban alcohol during prohibition, drinking rose as did the rise of crime families\mafia in america

Ban drugs like cocaine and weed, it forms the million dollar drug cartels and drug usage continued unfettered

"Ban" downloading music, its probably more rampant and uncontrollable than ever.

I have joked, im gonna own a bar, the top will be a basic bar, but then i will have an iron door in the back and its gonna be a 1920's speakeasy smoking bar. Complete with ragtime music and it will be a stereotypical smoke filled bar. heh, it will give me an excuse to wear a pin stripe suit and wingtip shoes

[Mastertank1]

a nasty little corner that just LOVES to come out and say;

"I'm going to forbid you to do something you really enjoy doing, and you won't be able to argue openly because IT"S TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN and it's also FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

They'll eventually get around to banning smoking entirely and then move on to high cholesterol foods.

Think that's insane? Right now, in Norway, high cholesterol foods are taxed so heavily to discourage people from eating them that there is now a thriving trade in smuggled, untaxed high cholesterol food and a lively black market.
No I am NOT kidding about this!

People who want to control the behavior of others are out of control!

[giantfan121262]

This is going way too far. If someone wants to smoke in their private home, then they should excercise that right. Please note that I am a smoker, but my home is smoke free, not only for my kids but the fact that the smell lingers on and gets into the fabric of my furniture and drapes.

[venray]

This is going way too far. If someone wants to smoke in their private home, then they should excercise that right. Please note that I am a smoker, but my home is smoke free, not only for my kids but the fact that the smell lingers on and gets into the fabric of my furniture and drapes.

We too are smokers that do not smoke in our home or in the car. We keep it away from the little one....

As for the likelyhood of successful enforcement of that type of law.....I give it about a pissholes chance in the snow of it ever happening....

You can push people only so far before Chaos ensues......and mob rule takes over....

sigh....wonder how many senators and congress men still smoke...

Maybe this will be how America votes in the future....

Even Arnold set up a "smoking tent" area for his cronies to smoke their stogies...

[ticklingnemesis]

As much as I dislike smoking, banning smoking in one's own home is going way too far.
I can understand public businesses and bars, but what you do in private is your own business and no one else's!
I wish every day that my dad would quit because I would hate to lose him to any smoking related illnesses. I want him to live long enough to see his grandkids grow up.
But I can't force him to quit. And a ban like that would only make things worse.
Why can't they focus more on ways to help people quit in the first place? Or on smoking prevention education?

[Redmage]

I just searched Yahoo News for anything about a total ban on smoking in San Francisco, and came up empty. Since I live near there, I'd think I'd have heard. Where are you getting this information?

[CitY of MicA]

I just searched Yahoo News for anything about a total ban on smoking in San Francisco, and came up empty. Since I live near there, I'd think I'd have heard. Where are you getting this information?
I was just about to ask the same question. I've come up with a proposed smoking ban in Belmont, a San Francisco suburb, in my search that might include multi-unit dwellings; there's no mention of a ban in private homes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-belmont29jan29,0,7656220.story?coll=la-home-local

Extremely off-topic, but I absolutely love San Francisco, Redmage. I may have misplaced my heart :redheart: during my last visit, though...

[Strider]

If it's not fascism,then what?

Paternalism would probably be the best word.

[cloudgazer2k]

here in texas, cities like dallas and arlington are systematically banning smoking in all the fun places. but, here in arlington, it's gonna hurt the city so bad. why? COLLEGE...TOWN. and i have seen maybe one in five college students that don't smoke, and the city is covered...nay...slathered in resturants, bars, taverns, pubs, greasy spoons and watering holes. all places that people want to smoke in.
to be brutally honest, the state legislators are off their nut, and city government is about as crazy. all this banning will do is make life more difficult for buisness owners, who will more than likely have more smoking customers than non-smokers...and this crap to ban smoking at home? please...if that gets even close to being passed, a bunch of pissed-off smokers will storm city hall, the governor's office, or whatever and slap them silly with petitions, cries of infringement, and the like.

and to think that you're a criminal for having more than 7 vibrators in your home in texas...to be fined for smoking in your own home you paid taxes for is utterly moronic.
and besides...depending on where one lives, the air you're breathing is just as bad as second-hand smoke...so any way one looks at it we're screwed.

[PainTrain]

I think smoking is the most disgusting habit in the world, and anyone who does it is automatically unattractive... Even so, it SHOULD NOT be banned...




Except for in restaurants. I don't want to smell that shit while I am trying to eat.

[maniactickler]

As much as i despise smoking, banning it from your own home its ridiculous. next thing you know, theyll be banning public flatulence. :idontwann

[Goodieluver]

They'll eventually get around to banning smoking entirely and then move on to high cholesterol foods.




Its already started in NY with trans fat

[Goodieluver]

here in texas, cities like dallas and arlington are systematically banning smoking in all the fun places. but, here in arlington, it's gonna hurt the city so bad. why? COLLEGE...TOWN. and i have seen maybe one in five college students that don't smoke, and the city is covered...nay...slathered in resturants, bars, taverns, pubs, greasy spoons and watering holes. all places that people want to smoke in.
to be brutally honest, the state legislators are off their nut, and city government is about as crazy. all this banning will do is make life more difficult for buisness owners, who will more than likely have more smoking customers than non-smokers...and this crap to ban smoking at home? please...if that gets even close to being passed, a bunch of pissed-off smokers will storm city hall, the governor's office, or whatever and slap them silly with petitions, cries of infringement, and the like.

and to think that you're a criminal for having more than 7 vibrators in your home in texas...to be fined for smoking in your own home you paid taxes for is utterly moronic.
and besides...depending on where one lives, the air you're breathing is just as bad as second-hand smoke...so any way one looks at it we're screwed.


College town or not, the students will adapt to it

My town recently enacted its ordinance on no smoking in bars or restaurants. Years prior smoking was banned in dorms and after that, they were not able to smoke within 10 feet of entrances, so once winter came, smokers were literally left in the cold. They say business has declined a bit but not enough to merit financial destruction. This is also from a town that the old council members voted an increase in the liquor tax at bars to "stop binge drinking"

Now we just binge for cheaper at home

[killemall]

I just searched Yahoo News for anything about a total ban on smoking in San Francisco, and came up empty. Since I live near there, I'd think I'd have heard. Where are you getting this information?


read this.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-belmont29jan29,0,7656220.story?coll=la-home-local

[cloudgazer2k]

Its already started in NY with trans fat

trans fat is actually more of a national thing, since it does so mach damage over time. wouldn't really call it a "ban", but more of a "switch" to better, healthier fats.

[drew70]

The anti-smoking activists are just like MADD mothers and other similar activist groups. They don't know when to quit. They refuse to recognize when a reasonable goal has been accomplished. They never say anything similar to, "Well, we've accomplished what we set out to to. It's time to move on." They're all too wrapped up in self-preservation. To admit victory would mean they are no longer necessary, and nobody wants to have to go out and look for new jobs. So they keep going, and going, and going, and.....

[ChosenofMystra]

As much as smoking disgusts me, I'm not about to tell anyone what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own home. The way I see it, as long as you don't smoke around me, you can light up 30 at a time for all I care.

[tickledgirl]

As much as smoking disgusts me, I'm not about to tell anyone what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own home. The way I see it, as long as you don't smoke around me, you can light up 30 at a time for all I care.

Their point seems to be that in an apartment building, smoke often isn't limited to individual units. The law wouldn't ban smoking in detached homes.

The stories talk about a apartment building where an asthmatic guy kept getting smoke in his apartment. I can kinda see the point. Still, completely banning smokers because there's a chance that smoke might go near a non-smoker seems pretty extreme. Seems like there might be a market for non-smoking floors or buildings or something. At least that'd be a better solution than requiring smokers to buy detached homes!

[Redmage]

read this.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-belmont29jan29,0,7656220.story?coll=la-home-local

OK. It's not in San Francisco, and it's not a total ban on smoking - even in its original form, and less so now.

[bugman]

Yet another example of the nanny-state we are becoming,and another way to slowly but surely chip away at individual freedom in this country.Why not allow the owner of an apartment building,a bar or resturant for example set the policy?I am not against smoking bans in all cases.But at the same time,no one is forced to go into a bar if smoking bothers them,and if there is a great demand for such i'm sure people will open such places.

Whats next,a ban on perfume or colonge which bothers some people?It's an extreme example,i admit.I am a believer in the slippery slope theory.When extremist of any stripe get a foot in the door they will keep pushing and pushing until the door is broken down.

[jugner]

Their point seems to be that in an apartment building, smoke often isn't limited to individual units. The law wouldn't ban smoking in detached homes.

The stories talk about a apartment building where an asthmatic guy kept getting smoke in his apartment. I can kinda see the point. Still, completely banning smokers because there's a chance that smoke might go near a non-smoker seems pretty extreme. Seems like there might be a market for non-smoking floors or buildings or something. At least that'd be a better solution than requiring smokers to buy detached homes!
In college, a smoking ban in the dorms was placed because a guy fell asleep n lit his mattress on fire (he was laying down while readinig). So for apartments it's good.

[bugman]

In college, a smoking ban in the dorms was placed because a guy fell asleep n lit his mattress on fire (he was laying down while readinig). So for apartments it's good.

People also leave the stove on and start fires in apartments,shall we ban cooking also? Or candles and space heaters? I would venture to guess these things cause as many or more fires then smoking.

[Redmage]

People also leave the stove on and start fires in apartments,shall we ban cooking also? Or candles and space heaters? I would venture to guess these things cause as many or more fires then smoking.Yes, the difference is that people need light, heat, and food. They don't actually need cigarettes.

[CitY of MicA]

People also leave the stove on and start fires in apartments,shall we ban cooking also? Or candles and space heaters? I would venture to guess these things cause as many or more fires then smoking.
Space heaters have been the culprit in a rash of fires in the tri-state area recently (space heaters don't kill people- people kill people :xlime: ). As for the statistics regarding the causes of residential fires, you would appear to be correct. There is some slightly conflicting information, however (from the Red Cross website- PDF attached below):

•Smoking was the leading cause of home fire deaths overall, but in the months of December, January and February smoking and heating equipment caused similar shares of fire deaths.(National Fire Protection Association)•Heating fires are the second leading cause of residential fires(cooking is the first). Heating fires are fires that are caused by functioning or malfunctioning central heating units, fixed orportable local heating units, fire places, chimneys and waterheaters. (U.S.Fire Administration)•Fixed and portable space heaters, including wood stoves, were involved in 74 percent of fire-related deaths. (U.S. FireAdministration)•Space heaters (defined as space heating equipment includingportable electric heaters, portable kerosene heaters, woodstoves,fireplaces with inserts and room gas heaters) account for 66 percent of all home heating fires. (National Fire ProtectionAssociation)

I don't really have an opinion on the proposed ban in Belmont; I haven't seen their statistical information and don't really have enough info to go on from that article. As for smoking bans in public places as we have here in NYC, I think they are great and much needed. It's a public health issue. Non-smoking patrons are not the only people being subjected to second-hand smoke in a restaurant or bar- the employees are, as well. And yes, there certainly is plenty of residential space above restaurants and bars where second hand smoke could be an issue.

[bugman]

No,they dont.The issue,to me comes down to a matter of personal choice.I do not care to live in a country where the government feels it must try to protect us against every hazard and risk in life.We have gone to far down that road for my liking as it is.

[Goodieluver]

In college, a smoking ban in the dorms was placed because a guy fell asleep n lit his mattress on fire (he was laying down while readinig). So for apartments it's good.


here, the ban was because people kept complaining and that it "costs too much to get the smell out of the curtains"

Apparently it costs too much to get the smell out of steel doors too to have smokers almost at the other end of the building outside to smoke away from entrances

[Robace252]

I can see both sides to this argument. While it certainly seems over the top to ban people from smoking in a residence they rent, it is more than within the rights of landlords to limit or ban smoking outright in places they own. Im sure their insurance rates would drop some (although I severely doubt any saving would be passed on to tenants), cleaning and airing out apartments from smokers can be time consuming..not to mention repainting.
I can see people doing this like Hotels with Smoking and Non-Smoking units.
Perhaps if they have an apartment complex with multiple buildings, they could designate Bldg's 1,3, and 5 as smoking and 2,4, and 6 as non-smoking.
But of course they would have to make that financial decision themselves, with the renting market sometimes up and down, to turn down potential renters could mean less finances....and we all knows what happens then.

Rob

[jugner]

No,they dont.The issue,to me comes down to a matter of personal choice.I do not care to live in a country where the government feels it must try to protect us against every hazard and risk in life.We have gone to far down that road for my liking as it is.
If it gets passed, you can move.

People are selfish and lazy, they complain about such high cost of health care, but don't want to do anything to improve it. I smoked for years, quit cold turkey, never cheated, felt sick and had fevers for a week. Did it though. It's hard, but it's not impossible at all.

[bugman]

As i said,this issue goes beyond smoking.Its a matter of personal freedom.Speaking for myself,i want the government to stay out of my life as much as possible,and to stay out of your life to.

I want to be free to make my choices,and i will deal with whatever happens as a result.I am not against all government regulation,i just would like to see as little as possible.

That government which governs least,governs best.Thomas Jefferson.

[Goodieluver]

I can see both sides to this argument. While it certainly seems over the top to ban people from smoking in a residence they rent, it is more than within the rights of landlords to limit or ban smoking outright in places they own. Im sure their insurance rates would drop some (although I severely doubt any saving would be passed on to tenants), cleaning and airing out apartments from smokers can be time consuming..not to mention repainting.
I can see people doing this like Hotels with Smoking and Non-Smoking units.
Perhaps if they have an apartment complex with multiple buildings, they could designate Bldg's 1,3, and 5 as smoking and 2,4, and 6 as non-smoking.
But of course they would have to make that financial decision themselves, with the renting market sometimes up and down, to turn down potential renters could mean less finances....and we all knows what happens then.

Rob

Then can employers fire employees who are overweight\dont diet? People who are obese do cause higher company insurance rates and pose a health risk

[Robace252]

Then can employers fire employees who are overweight\dont diet? People who are obese do cause higher company insurance rates and pose a health risk
No. Employees have protections from such actions under the law. However, I for one have always felt the job BELONGS to the employer, not the employee but the benefits are always up in the air.
I dont see the coorleation though goodie. You have a choice of where to live and you pay the landlord for the ability to live there. We dont have a choice (like apartments) to pay them and work where ever we want.
Now can an employeer who is investing in you (training..etc) ask when they hire you that you "refrain" from certain activities they deem dangerous. Sure, but it does not mean you have to accept the job.

But to finish answering the question, they can not fire them as far as I know, but if they did I dont think they would pass the extra money along to rest of the employees that are not overweight. Just like the apartment owners would not pass on the savings to rest of the renters.

Im not sure if I answered the question or just confused myself.

Rob