They did this in a town here in MN, the resturants lost a lot of money, a few went under, the local ecomomy sucks cuz the smokers stayed at home. I frown upon smoking bans. It is not like I hold you down and blow smoke in your face, if you don't like it, don't come around me when I smoke. I do not smoke when I go out to eat, but I do smoke at work, and I go out side to do it even though we can smoke inside.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Laws against Drinking and Driving..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against Housing discrimination..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against a business refusing serve to someone based on their gender, race or religion..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against unsafe Work Places..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against price fixing..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against charging outrageous prices for necessities (Price Gouging) when there is a Natural Disaster..Oops that's already on the books. Laws Prohibiting people from raising Livestock in Residential Areas in most communities..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against storing Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous Waste in Population Centers..Oops that's already on the books. Laws prohibiting the sale of Pornographic Material within close Proximity to Grammar and High Schools..Oops that's already on the books. Laws prohibiting the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco Products to minors..Oops that's already on the books.
Yep I guess we are legislating all our rights down the drain
Yes you are right. That town is where I'm from.. Duluth, MN =)... and we basically felt everything you mentioned...
Interesting wording. You're saying people should read through the thread before responding and yet you can criticize.....*scrolls up* a smoking ban on a cigar shop without reading the amendment.
-PAB
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Laws against Drinking and Driving..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against Housing discrimination..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against a business refusing serve to someone based on their gender, race or religion..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against unsafe Work Places..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against price fixing..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against charging outrageous prices for necessities (Price Gouging) when there is a Natural Disaster..Oops that's already on the books. Laws Prohibiting people from raising Livestock in Residential Areas in most communities..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against storing Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous Waste in Population Centers..Oops that's already on the books. Laws prohibiting the sale of Pornographic Material within close Proximity to Grammar and High Schools..Oops that's already on the books. Laws prohibiting the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco Products to minors..Oops that's already on the books.
Yep I guess we are legislating all our rights down the drain
Well, if we're going to do all of this, we might as well get one that actually has a positive affect on my life. It certainly isn't setting a new precedent.
Ziptar
Platinum Member
- Jul 7, 2001
- 2,077
- 0
- 86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Laws against Drinking and Driving..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against Housing discrimination..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against a business refusing serve to someone based on their gender, race or religion..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against unsafe Work Places..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against price fixing..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against charging outrageous prices for necessities (Price Gouging) when there is a Natural Disaster..Oops that's already on the books. Laws Prohibiting people from raising Livestock in Residential Areas in most communities..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against storing Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous Waste in Population Centers..Oops that's already on the books. Laws prohibiting the sale of Pornographic Material within close Proximity to Grammar and High Schools..Oops that's already on the books. Laws prohibiting the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco Products to minors..Oops that's already on the books.
Yep I guess we are legislating all our rights down the drain
Nice rant (I commend you on your ability to use the word oops so effectively.) but you missed my point and the target.
While there is no argument from me that these are laws that are passed to control CRIMINAL behaviour and behaviour that Endangers PUBLIC SAFETY. Arguments could be made that smoking endangers public safety. As I posted earlier all smoking and health issues aside....
What you have quoted above are LAWS. Laws are quite different than amendments to a constitution. With laws comes due process, a right to representation, and right to judgement by a jury of peers. A constitution grants or revokes rights, QED, no process no jury. Laws can be amended, invalidated, revoked very easily with due process. The only way to un-amend a constitution is to amend it again. (i.e.: US constitutional amendments 18 and 21)
A constitutional amendment to control individual personal behaviour that is neither a matter of public safety or criminal justice (remember at this time smoking is not prohibited by law, neither is drinking, but drinking AND driving is, see the distinction.) is a gross misuse of what a constitution represents and cheapens it entirely and in effect revokes the Property rights of business owners and personal freedoms of ALL citizens to a degree....
Should a Smoking Ban be required by a majority of the populace that?s fine have the voters vote on a LAW
Under current Florida law, The Florida Clean Indoor Air Act now limits smoking in public places to designated smoking areas. These places include government buildings, stores, restaurants, theatres and workplaces. Hotels must designate smoking and no smoking rooms, and restaurants must designate at least 65 percent of their seating as non-smoking. Restaurants have the discretion to ban smoking entirely.
Why then do we not amend the current law...? Instead of tinkering with the very foundation of citizens rights?
Here is why? and this is the pathetic part that makes me angry.
Amendment 6 made it onto the ballot due to the efforts of a group called Smoke-Free for Health. the group was well funded with the backing of such national organizations as the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and American Heart Association. It has raised nearly $2 million and collected the more than 500,000 signatures needed to get it on the ballot through the use of paid ?Volunteers?.
The most recent Floridian smoking law was a mandate that allotted only 35 percent of restaurant seating for smokers by October 1, 2001. If we fixed the law then why was it not fixed again now, why screw with the constitution?
While I am sure they had the best intentions and their hearts were in the right place worrying about everyone?s health, revoking rights is NOT the way to change behaviour nor legislate it? It is unacceptable for ANY special interest group to bypass due process and the rule of law for ANY reason by revoking constitutional rights
Constitutional rights are sacred and should not be tinkered with in any way, be it banning smoking, adding a death penalty, allowing pregnant pigs free roam, designating class size, or requiring a ?bullet train?. Those are all items that could be handled with LAWS.
The way it works now in Florida any group with a wholesome and innocent sounding name that has enough money and can make enough noise can COMPLETELY BYPASS due process and revoke the rights of citizens. That weakens the constitution from a foundation of basic rights to a tool of special interest.
That is wrong, and it should be just as troubling and sickening to you as me, no matter how you feel about smoking.
If you still don?t get what I mean Take a few minutes to go Here and read some of the amendments made to the U.S. Constitution. They all deal in basic human rights, (with the exception of 18 and 21, hmmm did our fore fathers learn something there??) Voting, Slavery, keeping and bearing arms, unreasonable search and seizure, religion. Seems to me against those things smoking, pigs, class size etc are pale and trashy in comparison and cheapen the constitution.
Originally posted by: Ziptar
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Laws against Drinking and Driving..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against Housing discrimination..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against a business refusing serve to someone based on their gender, race or religion..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against unsafe Work Places..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against price fixing..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against charging outrageous prices for necessities (Price Gouging) when there is a Natural Disaster..Oops that's already on the books. Laws Prohibiting people from raising Livestock in Residential Areas in most communities..Oops that's already on the books. Laws against storing Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous Waste in Population Centers..Oops that's already on the books. Laws prohibiting the sale of Pornographic Material within close Proximity to Grammar and High Schools..Oops that's already on the books. Laws prohibiting the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco Products to minors..Oops that's already on the books.
Yep I guess we are legislating all our rights down the drain
Nice rant (I commend you on your ability to use the word oops so effectively.) but you missed my point and the target.
While there is no argument for me that these are laws that are passed to control CRIMINAL behaviour and behaviour that Endangers PUBLIC SAFETY. Arguments could be made that smoking endangers public safety. As I posted earlier all smoking and health issues aside....
What you have quoted above are LAWS. Laws are quite different than amendments to a constitution. With laws comes due process, a right to representation, and right to judgement by a jury of peers. A constitution grants or revokes rights, QED, no process no jury. Laws can be amended, invalidated, revoked very easily with due process. The only way to un-amend a constitution is to amend it again. (i.e.: US constitutional amendments 18 and 21)
A constitutional amendment to control individual personal behaviour that is neither a matter of public safety or criminal justice (remember at this time smoking is not prohibited by law, neither is drinking, but drinking AND driving is, see the distinction.) is a gross misuse of what a constitution represents and cheapens it entirely and in effect revokes the Property rights of business owners and personal freedoms of ALL citizens to a degree....
Should a Smoking Ban be required by a majority of the populace that?s fine have the voters vote on a LAW
Under current Florida law, The Florida Clean Indoor Air Act now limits smoking in public places to designated smoking areas. These places include government buildings, stores, restaurants, theatres and workplaces. Hotels must designate smoking and no smoking rooms, and restaurants must designate at least 65 percent of their seating as non-smoking. Restaurants have the discretion to ban smoking entirely.
Why then do we not amend the current law...? Instead of tinkering with the very foundation of citizens rights?
Here is why? and this is the pathetic part that makes me angry.
Amendment 6 made it onto the ballot due to the efforts of a group called Smoke-Free for Health. the group was well funded with the backing of such national organizations as the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and American Heart Association. It has raised nearly $2 million and collected more than 500,000 through the use of paid ?Volunteers?.
The most recent Floridian smoking law was a mandate that allotted only 35 percent of restaurant seating for smokers by October 1, 2001. If we fixed the law then why was it not fixed again now, why screw with the constitution?
While I am sure they had the best intentions and their hearts were in the right place worrying about everyone?s health, revoking rights is NOT the way to change behaviour nor legislate it? It is unacceptable for ANY special interest group to bypass due process and the rule of law for ANY reason by revoking constitutional rights
Constitutional rights are sacred and should not be tinkered with in any way, be it banning smoking, adding a death penalty, allowing pregnant pigs free roam, designating class size, or requiring a ?bullet train? are all items that
The way it works now in Florida any group with a wholesome and innocent sounding name that has enough money and can make enough noise can COMPLETELY BYPASS due process and revoke the rights of citizens. That weakens the constitution from a foundation of basic rights to a tool of special interest.
That is wrong, and it should be just as troubling and sickening to you as me, no matter how you feel about smoking.
If you still don?t get what I mean Take a few minutes to go Here and read some of the amendments made to the U.S. Constitution. They all deal in basic human rights, (with the exception of 18 and 21) Voting, Slavery, keeping and bearing arms, unreasonable search and seizure, religion. Seems to me against those things smoking, pigs, class size etc are pale and trashy in comparison and cheapen the constitution.
I think you are exactly right. As I read through the thread, people keep throwing out similar laws... i.e. drinking and driving and pornography in the proximity of schools. Comparing those laws to the Smoking amendment is comparing apples to oranges. Those laws(not amendments) are here to protect the people. When you drink and drive you infringe on a person's right to a safe road. When you post pornagraphy near a school, you infringe on a students right to an education(indirectly). But telling a restaraunt owner that he can't allow people to smoke in HIS building is like me coming in your house and telling you to change your bathroom tile because I find it offensive. But the real problem isn't about smoking in restaraunts. The real problem is the citizens of Florida. I am absolutely disgusted by the amendments that were passed. They have NO clue how much it is going to cost the taxpayer. At a meeting I attended the other day, one guy quoted that in March when the state legislature meets, Florida will be 7 BILLION dollars in the hole. That is for a state with a ~50 Billion dollar budget. That is DEVASTATING. And as Ziptar touched on, Florida has the easiest state constitution to amend. Any organization or activist group can buy an amendment basically. They buy signitures and advertise the hell out of it. And for all you pig farming states... us passing that stupid pig in a pen amendment is going to effect you in the near future... just wait and see.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,522
- 20,161
- 146
That would be up to the OWNER of the PRIVATE BUSINESS to allow, or not allow. In mainstream society, no business owner in his right mind would allow that... As far as I know, there ARE nudist restaurants at nudist camps. But most of them even ask you to dress for dinner.
Again, the issue of smoking in businesses is not about smoker's rights. It's about the rights of business owners.
why does a non smoker's rights carry more weight than a smokers? why should I have to go outside to smoke just because you dont like it? sounds like a load of bullsh*t in the land of the free where all people are created equal and have the same voice in matters.
health consequences of secondhand smoke are extremely low - its more dangerous to be in a car or walking down a street than it is to be in a room with a smoker; ever been to a bowling alley?
let me tell you a story, i began bowling comptetivley a while back (2years or so). during that time a new bowling alley opened in town that was "smoke free." it was just the place to be for about a month. after that it was just little kids and parents, and finally just a few random 6year old's brthday parties. in just a year after it opened, it closed because the league bowlers and recreational bowlers (a good 50% of whom smoke, perhaps even more) refused to go somewhere they couldnt smoke. the smoker's kept the leagues at the the houses that allowed smoking, and the new place folded because of that.
restaurants havea s imilar reputation for allowing customers to smoke, what makes you think the same thing wont happen to restaurants?
now i'd like to return to my first point, i dont really give a crap that you are incovenienced by my smoke, if you dont like it go somewhere else. if i walked into an office and lit up, that'd be one thing, but if i wanna have a smoke while i'm waiting for my dinner to come, you can kiss my butt if you think i'm gonna move just because you dont like the smoke.
health consequences of secondhand smoke are extremely low - its more dangerous to be in a car or walking down a street than it is to be in a room with a smoker; ever been to a bowling alley?
let me tell you a story, i began bowling comptetivley a while back (2years or so). during that time a new bowling alley opened in town that was "smoke free." it was just the place to be for about a month. after that it was just little kids and parents, and finally just a few random 6year old's brthday parties. in just a year after it opened, it closed because the league bowlers and recreational bowlers (a good 50% of whom smoke, perhaps even more) refused to go somewhere they couldnt smoke. the smoker's kept the leagues at the the houses that allowed smoking, and the new place folded because of that.
restaurants havea s imilar reputation for allowing customers to smoke, what makes you think the same thing wont happen to restaurants?
now i'd like to return to my first point, i dont really give a crap that you are incovenienced by my smoke, if you dont like it go somewhere else. if i walked into an office and lit up, that'd be one thing, but if i wanna have a smoke while i'm waiting for my dinner to come, you can kiss my butt if you think i'm gonna move just because you dont like the smoke.
LOL!~
I don't think that a smoker's rights are weightier than a non-smoker's are. It's a matter of infringement of personal space.
Let me ask this...
Let's say you had a neighbor who had an outdoor PA system that could power a concert.
And perhaps he really enjoyed mowing the lawn and doing yardwork from 1AM to 6AM three days per week.
And, this strange neighbor also liked to play Opera music on his outdoor PA system loud enough that he could always hear every note, even while mowing the yard.
Would you have a reasonable right to complain? Doesn't he have a right ON HIS OWN PROPERTY to do what he wishes? What if what he wants to do extends beyond his personal boundries?
I'm willing to bet that almost everyone would say that this guy is unreasonable and that you would have a right to make him turn down the music and do his outdoor work at an hour that didn't disturb other people. But are you willing to be even handed? I don't think that most non-smokers would have a problem with smokers being in restaurants smoking.... so long as they are never exposed to the offensive smoke or odor. Do they have less right to not be infringed upon than someone with a noisy neighbor? Just like the neighbor, non-smokers are not saying you aren't allowed to smoke, but just like the noisy neighbor you need to keep it to yourself and not impose it on others.
Joe
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,522
- 20,161
- 146
That's just the thing, though. What if the voters had voted for a bill making it legal to shoot grizzly, 40 something biker types with a hard-on for computers? Would that make it Constitutional to do so?
Is not the right to private property the most basic right in our Constitution?
Exactly. The rube in Joe's scenario is a different case. Here you are talking about someone doing something on their private property that impinges on someone else's private property. You have a right to smoke in your own home. You do not have a right to fan the smoke into my home.
However, you do not (well, should not) have a right to come into my home and force me to stop my guests from smoking in my home as long as the smoking is not affecting your right to enjoy a smoke-free environment in YOUR home. Your only recourse in this situation should be to leave my home and start hanging out at your home, or in someone else's smoke-free home.
Or restaurant, such as the case may be.
Ok... well, tobacco smoke has been shown to be a carcinogen. Forget the customers... the business owners have a legal obligation to not subject their EMPLOYEES to that substance.
Here in Maryland, a business CAN have smoking indoors.... however, a completely seperate and isolated air handling system must be installed for the area where smoking is allowed and that area must be physically seperated (doors) from non-smoking areas. They have left it up to business owners to provide a place for smokers... IF .... the business owner wishes to do so. They haven't told them that they CANNOT smoke in their business, only that they must provide a smokeless area for those who wish it.
Joe
Here in Maryland, a business CAN have smoking indoors.... however, a completely seperate and isolated air handling system must be installed for the area where smoking is allowed and that area must be physically seperated (doors) from non-smoking areas. They have left it up to business owners to provide a place for smokers... IF .... the business owner wishes to do so. They haven't told them that they CANNOT smoke in their business, only that they must provide a smokeless area for those who wish it.
Joe
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
Don't light it or heat it.
Cotton-sponge soaked with tobacco extract. Intake port and inhale port use spring shutoffs that open when inhaled but close automatically to keep sponge from drying out.
Would last about 10 times as long as a normal cigarette, non messy and odorless (well unless it's mint/menthol).
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