Smoking Now Being Banned on California Beaches

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Smokers are not being discriminated against, but their nasty habit is, and there is nothing in the constitution that gives equal rights to nasty habits.

This is a highly opinionated and biased statement. Smoker's aren't being discriminated against... but smoking is.. those are hand in hand. And saying that is just stupid. That is like saying black people aren't being discriminated against, but their skin color is.

It absolutely is not. I love how folks on ATOT like to believe that the world is black and white and that if A=B and C=D that A=D.

Smoking is a voluntary activity.

On the particular stretch of beach that I frequent in NJ, it is illegal to enter the water unless you are on a surfboard or a kayak.

Where is the moral outrage? This is discrimination against bodyboarders and leisurely bathers!

It's not. The activities of bodyboarding and bathing are restricted. It is NOT a discrimination against the people who do it. People who like to bodyboard and sit in the water are quite welcome to enjoy this beach, but if they want to partake of these "habits," they have to walk down to another beach.

It is the same exact principle.

I disagree with the smoking ban for other practical reasons (hard to enforce, minimal benefit to anyone, etc).

But this is the government setting up rules over government property which they are perfectly within their right to do, and if you disagree with it, write a letter!

Well it's still opinionated and biased

Also, you talk like smoking is a voluntary activity. While this is true, it is highly addictive almost to the point that it isn't voluntary.

And being black isn't even involuntary anymore, look at michael jackson

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Smokers are a dying breed, literally. The world is a better place without them, their smoke, their smell, their health issues, etc.

Drugs tend to kill much faster... why hasn't drug use died out?

People have been smoking for thousands of years and nothing, not even bans will stop people from smoking any more than bans have stopped people from doing drugs or drinking alcohol.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Smokers are not being discriminated against, but their nasty habit is, and there is nothing in the constitution that gives equal rights to nasty habits.

This is a highly opinionated and biased statement. Smoker's aren't being discriminated against... but smoking is.. those are hand in hand. And saying that is just stupid. That is like saying black people aren't being discriminated against, but their skin color is.

It absolutely is not. I love how folks on ATOT like to believe that the world is black and white and that if A=B and C=D that A=D.

Smoking is a voluntary activity.

On the particular stretch of beach that I frequent in NJ, it is illegal to enter the water unless you are on a surfboard or a kayak.

Where is the moral outrage? This is discrimination against bodyboarders and leisurely bathers!

It's not. The activities of bodyboarding and bathing are restricted. It is NOT a discrimination against the people who do it. People who like to bodyboard and sit in the water are quite welcome to enjoy this beach, but if they want to partake of these "habits," they have to walk down to another beach.

It is the same exact principle.

I disagree with the smoking ban for other practical reasons (hard to enforce, minimal benefit to anyone, etc).

But this is the government setting up rules over government property which they are perfectly within their right to do, and if you disagree with it, write a letter!

Well it's still opinionated and biased

Also, you talk like smoking is a voluntary activity. While this is true, it is highly addictive almost to the point that it isn't voluntary.

And being black isn't even involuntary anymore, look at michael jackson

Smoking is completely voluntary. Just because its addictive doesn't mean you don't make the choice to still do it. People have quit before, just cause you lack self-control doesn't mean you should be allowed to smoke anywhere you choose.



As for the argument about wearing pink, if you think it is offensive, and a good majority of the population does, and they want it banned, then ban it. Of course that will never happen cause its bogus and is a totally off the wall example, where as smoking is a true bother to many people.

 

[Cuda1447]

*edit* nm

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Smokers are a dying breed, literally. The world is a better place without them, their smoke, their smell, their health issues, etc.

Drugs tend to kill much faster... why hasn't drug use died out?

People have been smoking for thousands of years and nothing, not even bans will stop people from smoking any more than bans have stopped people from doing drugs or drinking alcohol.

It's a downward trend (at least cigarette smoking is, anyways). The tobacco industry isn't recruiting new smokers as fast as they used to. This downward trend will likely be exponential, because new smokers generally start smoking in a social environment with friends.

 

[newb54]

Inevitable, it is banned everywhere else in cali.

 

[Sid59]

they should ban smoking within 100 feet of benches too. lol

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: newb54
Inevitable, it is banned everywhere else in cali.

yea i don't think out of state people get how smoke free cali is in the first place. when i've gone to other states, its like ack, smoking everywhere.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

Because they are the ones bothered by it. If I was bothered by an odor or something similar I would walk away or find somewhere else to go. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

[Mill]

You people seem to thing that democracy is about legislating your likes and dislikes. Democracy is supposed to be about freedom and individuals rights. We've bastardized it. Sickening.

 

[boyRacer]

i think its ridiculous being banned on beaches... but people throwing their butts every where didnt exactly help either...

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Mill
You people seem to thing that democracy is about legislating your likes and dislikes. Democracy is supposed to be about freedom and individuals rights. We've bastardized it. Sickening.

You speak of individual rights, where are non-smokers rights? The right to enjoy the beach without having to avoid smokers like the plague?

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: bR
i think its ridiculous being banned on beaches... but people throwing their butts every where didnt exactly help either...

i agree. they shouldn't ban smoking on beaches, just tax the cigs more for the cleanup. =D

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

Because they are the ones bothered by it. If I was bothered by an odor or something similar I would walk away or find somewhere else to go. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

so i suppose if your neighbor decided to blast his subwoofers all night, you should be the one to move somewhere else to avoid the noise pollution right?

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

Because they are the ones bothered by it. If I was bothered by an odor or something similar I would walk away or find somewhere else to go. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

so i suppose if your neighbor decided to blast his subwoofers all night, you should be the one to move somewhere else to avoid the noise pollution right?

Mill would think so. Of course Im sure he'll hop on here and say thats comparing apples to oranges, and yell something about a nanny government and a slippery slope.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

Because they are the ones bothered by it. If I was bothered by an odor or something similar I would walk away or find somewhere else to go. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

so i suppose if your neighbor decided to blast his subwoofers all night, you should be the one to move somewhere else to avoid the noise pollution right?

This has already been discussed. Read the thread.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

Because they are the ones bothered by it. If I was bothered by an odor or something similar I would walk away or find somewhere else to go. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

so i suppose if your neighbor decided to blast his subwoofers all night, you should be the one to move somewhere else to avoid the noise pollution right?

Mill would think so. Of course Im sure he'll hop on here and say thats comparing apples to oranges, and yell something about a nanny government and a slippery slope.

Read the thread, idiot.

 

[waggy]

im against smokeing. i think its a sick habit.

But this is silly. they are banning it on a beach? WTF thats nuts! I really think its bad that they banned it from bars. There should at least be able to have the option to smoke etc.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

Because they are the ones bothered by it. If I was bothered by an odor or something similar I would walk away or find somewhere else to go. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

so i suppose if your neighbor decided to blast his subwoofers all night, you should be the one to move somewhere else to avoid the noise pollution right?

Mill would think so. Of course Im sure he'll hop on here and say thats comparing apples to oranges, and yell something about a nanny government and a slippery slope.

Read the thread, idiot.

I already did, you say the same thing over and over, and its still stupid.


You claim you are for individual rights, where is the non-smokers right? Don't say they should be the one to move away cause they are bothered, they are bothered because its an activity that bothers a good majority of the public, not something that bothers a small percentage. Therefore the people doing the bothering should change.



See Mill this doesn't come down to black and white, right and wrong. Smoking isn't something thats morally wrong, and thats why we are outlawing it. It comes down to a large majority of the population not liking it, and instead of catoring to the minority, the government is going to appease the majority, the way it should be. Just like in an election, the majority vote wins, not the minority. If you can't grasp that simple concept then I really feel for you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: newb54
Inevitable, it is banned everywhere else in cali.

yea i don't think out of state people get how smoke free cali is in the first place. when i've gone to other states, its like ack, smoking everywhere.

Please...

smoke-free, until you walk outside into that nasty black polluted sh!t you call "air".
When I go to CA, it's like ack, the air is black, it stinks, I can't hardly see through it, and I can't fscking breathe...
The irony of all the anti-smoking nuts there is never lost on me.

Originally posted by: Mill
You people seem to think that democracy is about legislating your likes and dislikes. Democracy is supposed to be about freedom and individuals rights. We've bastardized it. Sickening.

Bingo. Welcome to Mob Rule.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

Because they are the ones bothered by it. If I was bothered by an odor or something similar I would walk away or find somewhere else to go. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

so i suppose if your neighbor decided to blast his subwoofers all night, you should be the one to move somewhere else to avoid the noise pollution right?

That's a completely idiotic comparison. Of course there's something wrong with blasting speakers all night just like there would be something wrong with burning a bushel of cigarettes on the beach. But there's nothing wrong with listening to music all night just like there's nothing wrong with smoking a cigarette on the beach. All you pansy asses just like crying, "Mommy, mommy, make the bad smoke go away" because you have been brainwashed over the years into hating it. Now you're like a bunch of Pavlovian dogs salivating with a "ban it!" any time someone mentions smoking.

And by the way, I don't smoke and I also don't care who does or where they smoke. There's a lot of nasty sh!t I've smelled over the years emanating from anywhere and everywhere and cigarettes are the least of it.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

Because they are the ones bothered by it. If I was bothered by an odor or something similar I would walk away or find somewhere else to go. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

so i suppose if your neighbor decided to blast his subwoofers all night, you should be the one to move somewhere else to avoid the noise pollution right?

Mill would think so. Of course Im sure he'll hop on here and say thats comparing apples to oranges, and yell something about a nanny government and a slippery slope.

Read the thread, idiot.

I already did, you say the same thing over and over, and its still stupid.


You claim you are for individual rights, where is the non-smokers right? Don't say they should be the one to move away cause they are bothered, they are bothered because its an activity that bothers a good majority of the public, not something that bothers a small percentage. Therefore the people doing the bothering should change.



See Mill this doesn't come down to black and white, right and wrong. Smoking isn't something thats morally wrong, and thats why we are outlawing it. It comes down to a large majority of the population not liking it, and instead of catoring to the minority, the government is going to appease the majority, the way it should be. Just like in an election, the majority vote wins, not the minority. If you can't grasp that simple concept then I really feel for you.

Did a majority of white people in the South or the US for that matter like Black people in the 1940's and 50's? Oh noes the majority should have mob rule over the rights of individuals. I'm not talking about catering to a minority, I am talking about INDIVIDUAL rights. Don't get them confused. I haven't repeated myself a single time as of yet. I'm actually tiring of your Sophomoric arguments.

 

[rahvin]

As has been pointed out before the color of ones skin is unchangable, smoking is an activity. Anyone that compares a public smoking ban to the civil rights movement automatically loses the arguement.

In my locality it is illegal to drink (or even carry an open container) an alcoholic beverage on a public a public street or sidewalk (and if we had beaches it would be illegal there as well). Is that comparible to making black people ride at the back of a bus? I don't think so, and if you think it is you need to lay off the crack.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jjones
There's a lot of nasty sh!t I've smelled over the years emanating from anywhere and everywhere and cigarettes are the least of it.

On that note, I think it should be illegal to stink up a public bathroom

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: rahvin
As has been pointed out before the color of ones skin is unchangable, smoking is an activity. Anyone that compares a public smoking ban to the civil rights movement automatically loses the arguement.

In my locality it is illegal to drink (or even carry an open container) an alcoholic beverage on a public a public street or sidewalk (and if we had beaches it would be illegal there as well). Is that comparible to making black people ride at the back of a bus? I don't think so, and if you think it is you need to lay off the crack.

How about homosexuality? That's an activity that I think it's safe to say that a majority doesn't like; not against it, but just doesn't like it. How about we ban, make it illegal, for any type of homosexual affection or display in public? Or am I talking apples and oranges here too?

But that won't happen because it's not PC. Just like being on the ban smoking bandwagon is PC.