• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"choice" party just decided they know better...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good. Tobacco and pot are the same and the fate of one should be the fate of the other.
I disagree for a couple of reasons:

1. Tobacco is chemically addictive. If you believe pot is, too, please post some evidence to support the claim.

2. As a former rock musician, I've been around more than enough drug abuse, but even if you assume pot is as carcinogenic and otherwise as deadly as tobacco, I've never seen anyone who could smoke 20 1/4" thick joints in one day of anything worth bothering to roll, let alone light.
I mentioned that in my second sentence. Also, the outrage against laws of tobacco, I should think, ought also to apply to pot. I am actually opposed to the government having any say in what I do with my body, but I do respect others rights to clean air and understand why they insist on it. I smoke nothing at all, however.

I find that people who are addicted to substances or psychologically committed to them for one reason or another, are sometimes very egotistical in insisting on their rights to use things that pollute other people's space. I don't like regulation but I don't much care for selfish assholes either. I see no reason why somebody walking in a forest couldn't smoke anything they want, and I don't want to eat next to some guy with a cigar.
Hey! Chipmunks have rights, too.

 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,423
614
126
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
In Colorado, the casinos did not get a free ride
The casinos did at first, the smoking ban went into effect but casinos were exempt. it was that way for several years, until last year when i guess the politicians got tired from people and bar owners saying "HEY WTF!!! WHY ARE THEY EXEMPT?" a bill was introduced last year to to include casinos for the ban and took effect not to long ago.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: thraashman
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good. Tobacco and pot are the same and the fate of one should be the fate of the other.
I disagree for a couple of reasons:

1. Tobacco is chemically addictive. If you believe pot is, too, please post some evidence to support the claim.

2. As a former rock musician, I've been around more than enough drug abuse, but even if you assume pot is as carcinogenic and otherwise as deadly as tobacco, I've never seen anyone who could smoke 20 1/4" thick joints in one day of anything worth bothering to roll, let alone light.
http://www.brown.edu/Student_S...ion/atod/marijuana.htm
http://www.whitehousedrugpolic..._myths_facts/myth2.pdf
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Resear...ijuana/Marijuana4.html

Just a few things I found in a brief search. I'm not trying to say that marijuana is as addictive as cigarrettes. In fact, very few things are. But to say that marijuana is not addictive, is really just a falsehood. I tried to post at least decently credible sources, the third source also cites all of its sources.
Beyond the health risks associated with marijuana smoke, there are also the risks attributable to THC:

cannabis health issues

Cannabis use has been linked to exacerbating the effects of psychosis, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema by several peer-reviewed studies for those who are vulnerable to such illnesses based on personal or family history. [51] A 1987 Swedish study claiming a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia was criticized for not differentiating between cannabis use and the use of other narcotics, and its results have not been verified by other studies. More recently, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study published research showing an increased risk of psychosis for cannabis users with a certain genetic predisposition, held by 25% of the population.[52]

In July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.[53][54][55]

While the long term and heavy use of cannabis is not linked to the severe or grossly debilitating cerebral effects associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse, it has been linked to more subtle impairment associated with memory, attention, and cognitive function.
But if someone wants to assume the health risks of their marijuana habit, that's fine by me, as long as they don't expect my to pay for their health care.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: manowar821
Just do me a favor, don't throw your spent cancer sticks out your car window while driving on the freeway, and I won't chuck my special smoker seeking coins at you.

I shouldn't have to share your experience of wallowing in being a complete automatic-man tool, and I shouldn't have to smell that shit while driving.
If anyone sounds like a automatic man tool it's you. Don't be surprised if one of your errant smoker seeking coins hits someones car and is soon followed by an face seeking fist followed by a throat seeking boot.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
pot is addictive like chocolate is addictive. you don't need official studies on the topic if you lived in a dorm. i don't smoke at all, never did, but plenty of friends did, and some still do on weekends. but there is no physical dependence or withdrawal.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Soon it will be no alcohol allowed in your blood system if you have keys in your pocket.

You go into the bar and check your keys, in order to get them back you have to pass a breathilizer test.

think how many innocents would be saved.
Many bars already do this voluntarily.

If you refuse to check your keys and they will not serve you alcohol.

If you refuse breath test they hold your keys and call a cab.

If you get beligerent they call the police.

Most places have off duty police on staff now.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,453
4
81
They are trying this stuff in my state too...

My town is a huge college town and have been trying to get the borough to pass an ordinance...

If they spent half the time they spent trying to get a law through, doing their duty as a consumer and trying to change the system they would do much better.

We already have quite a few bars (we are a huge drinking school so we have an asston of bars) already going smoke free or smokeless during select hours.

Why can't they continue the campaign that way instead of dictating it in law.

I love arguing with very left leaning people on this subject... especially when they start talking about the greater good.... they wonder how we get things like the patriot act.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,064
0
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: manowar821
Just do me a favor, don't throw your spent cancer sticks out your car window while driving on the freeway, and I won't chuck my special smoker seeking coins at you.

I shouldn't have to share your experience of wallowing in being a complete automatic-man tool, and I shouldn't have to smell that shit while driving.
If anyone sounds like a automatic man tool it's you. Don't be surprised if one of your errant smoker seeking coins hits someones car and is soon followed by an face seeking fist followed by a throat seeking boot.
Seriously? Seriously?

Pfft, smokers can't even run for further than 50 feet without wheezing like a pansy. I'd like to see one of them try. I literally have burn marks on my hood because of butt-littering pricks on the highway. Plus I can FEEL the toxins in my throat when it comes through my vents, it's like the second hand smoke is amplified, fucking nasty.

You could be a bitch and say "if you don't like it don't go outside, wah wah wah" but...

Smoking is nasty, the littering smokers are nastier, and so is their selfish outlook on life. Keep it to yourself, or get the coins, pigs. "If you don't like it, don't throw toxic burning shit out your windows".
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Soon it will be no alcohol allowed in your blood system if you have keys in your pocket.

You go into the bar and check your keys, in order to get them back you have to pass a breathilizer test.

think how many innocents would be saved.
Many bars already do this voluntarily.

If you refuse to check your keys and they will not serve you alcohol.

If you refuse breath test they hold your keys and call a cab.

If you get beligerent they call the police.

Most places have off duty police on staff now.
That hasn't hit out here yet, but I'm not surprised they're doing it "voluntarily" in the more populated areas. If I recall correctly "no smoking" restrictions were voluntary to start with too?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Soon it will be no alcohol allowed in your blood system if you have keys in your pocket.

You go into the bar and check your keys, in order to get them back you have to pass a breathilizer test.

think how many innocents would be saved.
Many bars already do this voluntarily.

If you refuse to check your keys and they will not serve you alcohol.

If you refuse breath test they hold your keys and call a cab.

If you get beligerent they call the police.

Most places have off duty police on staff now.
That hasn't hit out here yet, but I'm not surprised they're doing it "voluntarily" in the more populated areas. If I recall correctly "no smoking" restrictions were voluntary to start with too?
Yes, this is the northeast.

I was in a small bar last weekend and was surprised they had three off duty officers on staff.

One checked ID's. One did the breath test and the other rotated amongst the other two in shifts.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't like smoking?

Don't smoke.
Hey, if smokers can figure out a way to enjoy their habit without making everyone around them take part in the experience, they should feel free to smoke anywhere they like. Until then, if you want to get lung cancer and smell like a fire at a condom factory, that's your business...but I don't think you have a right to force that shit on other people.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't like smoking?

Don't smoke.
Hey, if smokers can figure out a way to enjoy their habit without making everyone around them take part in the experience, they should feel free to smoke anywhere they like. Until then, if you want to get lung cancer and smell like a fire at a condom factory, that's your business...but I don't think you have a right to force that shit on other people.
That's why it should be left up to the indvidual business owners. Nobody is forcing anybody to go into any restartaunt/bar/casino. The owner should be just as free to allow smoking in his establishment as he is not to allow it.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't like smoking?

Don't smoke.
No problem, but that does nothing to stop the inconsiderate assholes who pollute everyone else's public environment with their toxic, carcinogenic second hand smoke.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: manowar821
Plus I can FEEL the toxins in my throat when it comes through my vents, it's like the second hand smoke is amplified, fucking nasty.
.
Yeah, it sucks being behind cars in traffic. Maybe we should ban ICEs for the "greater good" and "health" reasons. I mean, your exposure can be much greater....
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: manowar821
Plus I can FEEL the toxins in my throat when it comes through my vents, it's like the second hand smoke is amplified, fucking nasty.
.
Yeah, it sucks being behind cars in traffic. Maybe we should ban ICEs for the "greater good" and "health" reasons. I mean, your exposure can be much greater....
Yes, ICES's should've been banned since 1973.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
100
106
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good. Tobacco and pot are the same and the fate of one should be the fate of the other.
I disagree for a couple of reasons:

1. Tobacco is chemically addictive. If you believe pot is, too, please post some evidence to support the claim.

2. As a former rock musician, I've been around more than enough drug abuse, but even if you assume pot is as carcinogenic and otherwise as deadly as tobacco, I've never seen anyone who could smoke 20 1/4" thick joints in one day of anything worth bothering to roll, let alone light.
I mentioned that in my second sentence. Also, the outrage against laws of tobacco, I should think, ought also to apply to pot. I am actually opposed to the government having any say in what I do with my body, but I do respect others rights to clean air and understand why they insist on it. I smoke nothing at all, however.

I find that people who are addicted to substances or psychologically committed to them for one reason or another, are sometimes very egotistical in insisting on their rights to use things that pollute other people's space. I don't like regulation but I don't much care for selfish assholes either. I see no reason why somebody walking in a forest couldn't smoke anything they want, and I don't want to eat next to some guy with a cigar.
While I agree with that statement, how does that jive with a universal healthcare model that I assume you support? Should the taxpayers foot the bill for someone who recklessly destroys their body through heavy drug use?

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good. Tobacco and pot are the same and the fate of one should be the fate of the other.
I disagree for a couple of reasons:

1. Tobacco is chemically addictive. If you believe pot is, too, please post some evidence to support the claim.

2. As a former rock musician, I've been around more than enough drug abuse, but even if you assume pot is as carcinogenic and otherwise as deadly as tobacco, I've never seen anyone who could smoke 20 1/4" thick joints in one day of anything worth bothering to roll, let alone light.
I mentioned that in my second sentence. Also, the outrage against laws of tobacco, I should think, ought also to apply to pot. I am actually opposed to the government having any say in what I do with my body, but I do respect others rights to clean air and understand why they insist on it. I smoke nothing at all, however.

I find that people who are addicted to substances or psychologically committed to them for one reason or another, are sometimes very egotistical in insisting on their rights to use things that pollute other people's space. I don't like regulation but I don't much care for selfish assholes either. I see no reason why somebody walking in a forest couldn't smoke anything they want, and I don't want to eat next to some guy with a cigar.
While I agree with that statement, how does that jive with a universal healthcare model that I assume you support? Should the taxpayers foot the bill for someone who recklessly destroys their body through heavy drug use?
Well everyone would be paying and singing Kumby ya.
 

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,184
1
0
Link to story

Basically, we now have joined the ranks of Minnesota and Illinois in our region of the country in a smoking ban. Many of us have supported this for a long time as we're fairly progressive but we finally achieved justice for the employees of Iowa. Near 100,000 workers are no longer forcibly working in a smoke filled environment 8 hours a day as no employer has the right to enforce on anyone. Many of these people are there out of economic necessity as those jobs aren't typically degree holding positions.

It's a shame there were exemptions in the compromise bill, but the lobbying efforts on big businesses part are indeed strong. I think it's possible we'll eventually ban it entirely in the Veterans Home in Marshalltown as well as the casinos.

A friend of mine insisted that it was a bad idea because it's a property rights issue and I insist it's a matter of the general welfare and a public health issue.

No different from our current laws banning drinking and driving. You can't do that either because it's in a public space, when an employer opens his doors to the public it's a public space and he's liable for the safety of you while you are there if you fall on a wet floor and hurt yourself ect. He claimed it was a choice to go there and eat or drink. Maybe we should repeal drunk driving laws so then it can also be his "choice" to drive or not? Both are free will. Can't take away someone's right to drink and drive right? Stay off the roads and don't eat at restaurants! It's that simple.
People still have the right to smoke in their building, just don't open it up to the public.

The Mayo Clinic says there are 3,400 people who directly die from 2nd hand smoke's effects a year. Another friend said that is insignificant to the majority of which I replied, as long as you aren't 1 of the 3,400 I guess that's cool huh? Some people who work these jobs might want to grow to see their grandchildren, or simply live healthy lives.

Or, after all the BS arguments.. people can simply do what they should've been doing before: going outside to smoke. Out of common courtesy and having proper manners and consideration of those around you.

Let's face it, laws like these are not necessary if we didn't have a ME ME ME culture when people could give two craps less about your health so they light up in a table near you so you get to breathe in their smoke.
Well, since people didn't give a damn about your health and must have their cigarette now, we took care of that for them here in Iowa. Now they have to smoke 10 feet from every entrance. Everyone knows it hurts other people, they should've been doing that voluntarily for YEARS.
I hope everyone else lobbys their local state and city governments to enact similar bans. It might in some people's view be a "small step" towards improving public health but I for one think it's a BIG victory if you save 1 employees life or any one of ours due to preventing this unnecessary air pollution in enclosed public spaces.

Here's the Mayo Clinic article on the subject
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Hafen
Hey, the home of the Freedom, Faith and Family party just ripped 400 kids from their parents and families based on religious practices.
Maybe its hypocracy week.
Your outrage is undermined by your spelling skills.

Just saying. :(
You missed the "SMAKING"by miketheid.:D All the outrage over a smaking ban?
Can I smak smokers? Oh, no it's banned!
we've also banned smaking in public as well. :D
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't like smoking?

Don't smoke.
thats like saying that if i don't want arsenic and mercury in my river i shouldn't dump arsenic and mercury in the water. Of course i shouldn't and don't, but that doesn't help me when other people do it.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Link to story

Basically, we now have joined the ranks of Minnesota and Illinois in our region of the country in a smoking ban. Many of us have supported this for a long time as we're fairly progressive but we finally achieved justice for the employees of Iowa. Near 100,000 workers are no longer forcibly working in a smoke filled environment 8 hours a day as no employer has the right to enforce on anyone. Many of these people are there out of economic necessity as those jobs aren't typically degree holding positions.

It's a shame there were exemptions in the compromise bill, but the lobbying efforts on big businesses part are indeed strong. I think it's possible we'll eventually ban it entirely in the Veterans Home in Marshalltown as well as the casinos.

A friend of mine insisted that it was a bad idea because it's a property rights issue and I insist it's a matter of the general welfare and a public health issue.

No different from our current laws banning drinking and driving. You can't do that either because it's in a public space, when an employer opens his doors to the public it's a public space and he's liable for the safety of you while you are there if you fall on a wet floor and hurt yourself ect. He claimed it was a choice to go there and eat or drink. Maybe we should repeal drunk driving laws so then it can also be his "choice" to drive or not? Both are free will. Can't take away someone's right to drink and drive right? Stay off the roads and don't eat at restaurants! It's that simple.
People still have the right to smoke in their building, just don't open it up to the public.

The Mayo Clinic says there are 3,400 people who directly die from 2nd hand smoke's effects a year. Another friend said that is insignificant to the majority of which I replied, as long as you aren't 1 of the 3,400 I guess that's cool huh? Some people who work these jobs might want to grow to see their grandchildren, or simply live healthy lives.

Or, after all the BS arguments.. people can simply do what they should've been doing before: going outside to smoke. Out of common courtesy and having proper manners and consideration of those around you.

Let's face it, laws like these are not necessary if we didn't have a ME ME ME culture when people could give two craps less about your health so they light up in a table near you so you get to breathe in their smoke.
Well, since people didn't give a damn about your health and must have their cigarette now, we took care of that for them here in Iowa. Now they have to smoke 10 feet from every entrance. Everyone knows it hurts other people, they should've been doing that voluntarily for YEARS.
I hope everyone else lobbys their local state and city governments to enact similar bans. It might in some people's view be a "small step" towards improving public health but I for one think it's a BIG victory if you save 1 employees life or any one of ours due to preventing this unnecessary air pollution in enclosed public spaces.

Here's the Mayo Clinic article on the subject
The problem with your stance/the stance of the article is that workers aren't FORCED to work in that environment, nor are patrons FORCED to do business there. This is about choice, and everyone should have that choice and did have a choice until the facist libs decided they know what's best for everyone.

But since we're playing the "public health" card - I don't want to see pop machines or candy machines in public. WE have enough fat people sucking off the system costing us all so I propose we eliminate junk food in public places. Exempt grocery stores and fine anyone distributing junk food in public.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


The problem with your stance/the stance of the article is that workers aren't FORCED to work in that environment, nor are patrons FORCED to do business there. This is about choice, and everyone should have that choice and did have a choice until the facist libs decided they know what's best for everyone.
I don't think this is really a liberal or conservative action. Voters decided that you can't smoke in public places, just like you can't defecate in public places. If you want to take a shit on the floor, do it in your own home.

But since we're playing the "public health" card - I don't want to see pop machines or candy machines in public. WE have enough fat people sucking off the system costing us all so I propose we eliminate junk food in public places. Exempt grocery stores and fine anyone distributing junk food in public.
the difference is, when i eat a candy bar, i don't also force you to ingest a candy bar. However, when you smoke, you do force me to inhale that shit. This is about smokers depriving everyone else of the liberty to decide what they do and do not consume as much as it is about smokers having the liberty to do what they want.

the tyranny of the smokers is ending, good riddance.

 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Originally posted by: manowar821
Just do me a favor, don't throw your spent cancer sticks out your car window while driving on the freeway, and I won't chuck my special smoker seeking coins at you.

I shouldn't have to share your experience of wallowing in being a complete automatic-man tool, and I shouldn't have to smell that shit while driving.

Nasty ass slags. *cough cough*

That being said... I actually do feel bad that smokers are being banned left and right from places, bars especially. That's one place where I EXPECT to smell that shit. You're still nasty, though.
You throw a freaking coin at my car, I guarantee you will be in the ditch before you know what the heck happened. I would highly suggest you cease the property destruction before you do it to the wrong person.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS