yay for a nanny government! Apparently, I cant decide what is good or bad for me, so they do it for me!
BTW, I dont agree with this ban, and I'm a non-smoker.
BTW, I dont agree with this ban, and I'm a non-smoker.
they should restrict smoking to within the lungs, no external smoke. if you suck it in, no exhaling until all the carcinogens are absorbed.
that way smoking can stave off obesity as america's #1 killer for another decade
that way smoking can stave off obesity as america's #1 killer for another decade
So you are for massive government intervention? Do you like paying 80% of your income to fund stupid laws and programs?
Your reply has nothing at all to do with the subject matter. The issue at hand is that smoking is an activity, an activity that impacts other people directly. Just as local governments have noise ordinaces they can have smoking ordinances if the people wish it. This doesn't mean you can't smoke, this means you can't smoke where other people who don't want to inhale your smoke are. Just as you can't drive down the freeway on the wrong side and you can't drive around with a 160db stereo going off at 3 in the morning.
This has nothing at all to do with a nanny government or income tax levels, but it was a nice try shifting the topic.
the Europeans smoke a crappload more than we do here in the US and you don't see them bitching about it?....things that make you go hmmm.
This is not about a nanny government. [cheers rahvin]. In a public place, like the beach, you aren't allowed to go around disrupting people. You can't do whatever you want when it has an effect on everybody else there. If I were to take a remixed Yanni (featuring Snoop Dogg and Willie Nelson) record on my stereo, and blast it on max volume on the beach, they'd make me shut it off. If I were to do it on the sidewalk in front of your house at 3 a.m., same deal (and you'd be happy they did). Go listen to it at home, fine with everyone. Want to smoke? Do it at home, fine. Do it in a place where nobody minds, fine. Do it on the public beach where it not only disrupts but causes a health hazard for everyone else there, not fine. Everybody has a right to visit the public beach (and not everyone can/will if you dirty/pollute it with all your smoke).
Don't try and argue that cigarette-smoke isn't a hazard. We all know cigarettes are bad for you, whether you're smoking or inhaling somebody else's smoke. If you want to smoke, go ahead. When you get sick from it, you shouldn't be blaming the tobacco companies, you knew it all along. But everyone on the beach didn't decide to smoke, so they shouldn't have to be subject to its effects to enjoy public property. Everybody can just enjoy the beach if you can just go an hour or two without smoking, wait til you leave. Not that difficult.
If you want to worry about the nanny gov't, there are much worse things: unlimited wiretapping, release of abortion records, etc., that should occupy your attention. This isn't about liberals, conservatives, or big brother. This is a local issue, and most local issues don't have very much at all to do with big political machines.
Don't try and argue that cigarette-smoke isn't a hazard. We all know cigarettes are bad for you, whether you're smoking or inhaling somebody else's smoke. If you want to smoke, go ahead. When you get sick from it, you shouldn't be blaming the tobacco companies, you knew it all along. But everyone on the beach didn't decide to smoke, so they shouldn't have to be subject to its effects to enjoy public property. Everybody can just enjoy the beach if you can just go an hour or two without smoking, wait til you leave. Not that difficult.
If you want to worry about the nanny gov't, there are much worse things: unlimited wiretapping, release of abortion records, etc., that should occupy your attention. This isn't about liberals, conservatives, or big brother. This is a local issue, and most local issues don't have very much at all to do with big political machines.
Stupid.
I think it's weird. People start to yell and scream whenever gun control is mentioned. 'It's my right to carry a gun...' and so on. But when smoking on a frikking beach (which is outdoors), no one cmplains the same way.
Puritans can go to h3ll.
I think it's weird. People start to yell and scream whenever gun control is mentioned. 'It's my right to carry a gun...' and so on. But when smoking on a frikking beach (which is outdoors), no one cmplains the same way.
Puritans can go to h3ll.
That's fine and all, but a public referendum or municipal ordinance shouldn't usurp the constitution. If people want smoking banned period they should propose an amendment to the constitution. Of course they will have to get some senators and house reps to propose it, but voter referendums and ordinances are NOT supposed to usurp our freedom. Tis a a common idea that one person's freedom ends when another's is encroached. However, I think most of us here are arguing about the giant slippery slope here, and also we think must non-smokers overstate their "aggravation." I stopped smoking recently, and I don't really care for the smoke, however, I don't care for people's body odor, their bad breath, their smelly ass, their oily hair, their music, the color of their shirt, etc. It should NOT be up to the people to ban actives that "annoy" them. Actual Health risks are fine however. Noise ordinances are simply a bad analogy, because they effect large areas and large number of residents. One cigarette isn't going to effect the distance or people that loud music will. Plus, it is obvious in a public place that you can walk away from smokers. Quite hard to walk away from music if you are in your own home.
Gee, throw out a couple or more fallacies to shore up your argument. It has everything to do with a slippery slope idea of nanny government. Speed limits and driving on the wrong side of the road are in place for the general well being and health of society. Same with noise ordinances, especially since noise is a bit more pervasive than cigarette smoke. You are making a terrible analogy to shift the argument onto letting the government regulate every nuance of our life. I already have to have low-flow toilets due to the EPA. I can't even choose anymore when I built my house. Sure, afterwords I can rip out the new and put in old, but that severely restricts my freedom of choice to begin with. It was to "save water" but I see it taking up more water. Regardless, if I want to pay higher water bills I should be able to. If they need to reduce consumption of water they can raise the prices, not legislate what kind of toilet I can use. See, in rahvin's perfect state he doesn't have to do anything. The government is his nanny and takes care of all his wants and needs. He sits back with his diaper on sucking his thumb. What freedom.
Good tirade on low flow toilets but it like the previous poster has almost nothing to do with this thread. Smoking is a "general well being and health of society" issue (to use your words). Second hand smoke is a serious health issue and should you wish to consult a source I suggest you tackle the AMA journals. Beaches in california are EXTREMELY crowded, you will often have people all around you and the air is often quite stagant for the first 4 feet or so above the sand. If you smoke on a public beach you often subject the other users of the beach to second hand smoke (neglecting that every smoker I have ever met is a litter bug), this makes it a health issue and regulatable by the owners of that beach. But after your tirade about how driving on the wrong side and noise ordiances are health and safety issues I expected you to prove that smoking isn't and my analogy was wrong because of that.
As far as the low flow toilets go, I agree it should be a local issue (not EPA). Your local sewer company should hit you with a $3-6k construction impact fee for not using low flow. Infastructure costs money afterall and we wouldn't want other tax payers to have to pay for sewer upgrades because of you.
Ugh, point by point. Starting with your other response:
Do you really think second-hand smoke isn't harmful? I don't care about asking me to reference studies, I'm not a scientific researcher. Do you really think that is healthy and good for others, considering that it's so bad for the person smoking it? Whether or not it causes drastic increases in cancer rates doesn't matter... it's adversely affecting the health of someone who wants to enjoy that public space and doesn't want (and shouldn't) have to deal with the potential health risks. There's nobody saying that B.O. and oily hair have any chances of affecting your health are they? Doesn't apply.
Why would people overstate their aggravation from smoking? People do like to complain, but they wouldn't go so far as to ban smoking on their beaches if it didn't actually, truly bother them and cause concern for their health.
Music is not a bad analogy. The difference is one of degrees, not of reasoning. In the music case, I could still move a 1/4 mile down the beach and get away from the tunes... you could move to a different house and escape. But you shouldn't have to.Someone should not have to move to accomodate you on the beach just because they'd rather not face potential health risks. Just because it's not affecting somebody 15 yards down the beach doesn't mean it's not affecting the guy next to you on a crowded beach.
A slippery slope: a widely over-used argument. This is a lame tactic. By saying it's a slippery slope, you're saying that this part "no smoking on the public beach," isn't all that bad, but it will lead to worse things. What things? Banning smoking in your home? Banning you from eating red meat? Those don't affect others, you're not going to get those things taken away from you. [I love red meat.] If such things were tried, I'd be right there with the smokers (maybe even inhaling the smoke at their rally) to protest. You have your undeniable right to inhale, digest, or absorb any and all toxic, carcinogenic, or disgusting substances you please as long as they don't also affect me, who doesn't want to inhale, digest, or absorb them.
They need to stop this ban and we need to legalize animal sex on the beaches too. Wouldn't want people's individual rights being taken away, now would we?
But I've done that in numerous threads. This isn't the first time that Osorum, Amused, Vic, or I have said how the EPA study was flawed. The EPA study is what 99.9% of all people and organizations base their warnings and propaganda on. I can certainly see your point regarding litter, and I do agree. Litter is a serious environmental issue, however, like the article stated, much of the cigarette litter was washed there out of storm drains, and was not due to smoking on the beach. Secondly, littering is already illegal. Why not make it illegal to carry ANYTHING down to the beach other than yourself? That would be the only fair way, because paper products, cans, and plastic are much more of a problem than cigarette butts, and every bit as hazardous. I think the low flow toilets are very relevant to the thread. It is exactly how the government is telling me how I can live my life. They don't let me deal with the water usage issues myself. They FORCE me to agree with their thinking. That is a restriction on my freedom. High flow toilets aren't hurting a soul, especially since the low flows tend to use almost as much or more water.
If "everyone" means the window-disposal people, sure!Originally posted by: Orsorum
Let's just shoot everyone!
Let's see... we were told that if they banned smoking INDOORS that it would NEVER EVER turn into an outdoor ban. Beaches are outside. That gives perfect credence to my argument about a slippery slope. Finally, you made the argument that it is harmful. It is up to you to prove that with a NON-BIASED and accurate study. The EPA study has already been thrown out of Federal Court as biased and ridiculous. You're buying into propaganda and you don't even know it. If ETS was so incredibly harmful, then why can't the EPA list a few deaths related to it?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
2nd-hand smoke may have harmful effects in an unventilated indoor area. Those effects have never been proven, but are something I can somewhat agree to, despite the fact that it takes smokers a pack a day for 20+ years (usually 40 or more) to die from them. Some smokers (even heavy ones) never suffer any serious health effects at all.
Outdoors though, and we go back to my old argument about auto pollution, which would be absolutely true in this case. To even pretend that 2nd-hand smoke outdoors is more harmful that auto pollution is to be a complete idiot. You may want to learn about just what cars spew out and how much. You think that nasty black LA smog is from smokers? or cars?
If you wanna argue the litter thing, I can understand that, but I think some attempt to enforce our existing litter laws on our beaches should be in order first. Not all litterers are smokers, not by a long shot.
Slippery slope is not an over-used argument, it is a proven one. Just because you've gone 3-monkeys to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Outdoors though, and we go back to my old argument about auto pollution, which would be absolutely true in this case. To even pretend that 2nd-hand smoke outdoors is more harmful that auto pollution is to be a complete idiot. You may want to learn about just what cars spew out and how much. You think that nasty black LA smog is from smokers? or cars?
If you wanna argue the litter thing, I can understand that, but I think some attempt to enforce our existing litter laws on our beaches should be in order first. Not all litterers are smokers, not by a long shot.
Slippery slope is not an over-used argument, it is a proven one. Just because you've gone 3-monkeys to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
You see... this here is a classic example of how democracy becomes the "tyranny of the majority".
Classic citizen response: "What? Infringe upon my neighbors' rights but not mine? Works for me, as I never liked what they do anyway." Or... "Raise my neighbors' taxes but not mine? Sounds great."
Now if a way can be found to pit each special interest group against the other (and a way has been found), with each other working to infringe the others' rights, then the combined effect is that ALL rights can be removed from the populace at large.
This is why our country was created with the Rule of Law, and not the Rule of the Mob. Unfortunately, everyone seems to forget that these days in their greed and hatred of their neighbor, and government is only too happy to accept the extra powers, priviledges, and revenue that we are giving it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter