Should we just make smoking illegal?

[Texasgal]

It seems that both sides cannot come up with a reasonable solution.

So, should it just be banned period?

For the record, I am not a smoker, but I do not like the government telling people how they must run their business.

Discuss.

* and yeah, another smoking thread...why the hell not? :evilgrin:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Well

nah... just make it hard. Personally I think there should be no substance that is illegal. The War on Drugs is just plain stoooopid.

[Vincardog]

2. We should make everything that involves personal health decisions LEGAL

[YellowRubberDuckie]

100. But smoking isn't just about personal health.

It's also about the people around you. I HATE the smell of smoke and I HATE it when I walk into my living room and I can tell the fucking neighbors have been chain smoking. Makes me gag. We use a lot of incense which makes me gag sometimes too, but it covers the smell. Oh and the Febreze Air stuff is GREAT.
Duckie

[bbgrunt]

113. yea, and I HATE the smell of the pig farm 3 miles away--it makes me sick

[GreenArrow]

119. Yeah, and I hate the stench of cheap, cloying perfume

or cologne, liberally applied, especially while in an elevator.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

124. Yeah, that's the same...

:eyes:

[GreenArrow]

130. why should I have to get headaches

itchy throat, and clogged sinuses because of someone's vanity? All of which have been known to happen when I've been exposed to someone wearing a particularly insolent "fragrance".

[Vincardog]

138. It is your living room. Tell them to put their Butts out. You can say you

have a condition or are allergic to smoke or whatever you want to say.
Will you take responsibility for your own actions or lack of them? Or do you need a LAW to save you from the stigma?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

139. No...Apparently I share ventilation with the smokers next door.

[Debi]

3. Yes, and then I can call 911 every time my husband lights up

:eyes:

Okay, I'm being facetious - could you imagine another prohibition?

Plus, it'll never happen - Hello - Tobacco Lobby?!!$$$

[ed murrow]

9. Yes, and then I can call 911 every time my husband lights up

I smoke very rarely

But I don't have any problems with bans in all restaurants, public buildings, etc

I do think bars should have the choice

[ixion]

4. making any type of drug illegal solves nothing

it serves only to fund organized crime.

IMO, we should stop trying to legislate morality and let people make their own decisions.

Just my two cents.

[Imagevision]

107. Big Biz markets a product that knowingly kills 500,000+ per year

If it cigarettes were made with no additive qualities? -- no, smoking shouldn't be illegal but when quitting is equated with getting off heroine, thats when Tobacco companies should re held responsible for the costs to get smokers off the nicotine laced delivery component.

And they make a big stink about marijuana, at least it contains no nicotine and you can stop whenever you choose. (I read that somewhere)

[truebrit71]

5. No.

I don't bitch about non-smokers atrocious cheap perfume, or their skull-crushing halitosis, or when non-smokers go out in public with an offensive spouse, so I think that they should just STFU and fetch me another pack of ciggies...

[MarsThe Cat]

6. no.

a reasonable solution- allow each business to determine whether or not their establishment is smoke-free...let market forces decide- that's what our country is supposed to be about.

[eggman67]

24. Hey stop that!!

Logic and reason have no place on a smoking thread ;)

[YellowRubberDuckie]

103. Yeah, that's logic and reason...

:eyes:

[LosinIt]

7. In NY State we have been unable to smoke in businesses for years

no problem since people have gotten used to it. Even in bars, they have made little pods outside for people to smoke. Not a perfect solution, people bitched, but the furor died down.

[karlrschneider]

64. It's illegal here in Okla too but nobody pays any attention to it.

(I mean in bars)...

[Missy M]

68. In some places business died down too.

[MadHound]

8. Oh lord no, no more prohibitions of anything

All a smoking ban would do is create a black market in smokes, which will require a War on Cigs, which will sieze even more of our rights. Then there will be the accompaning secondary crime wave, with people stealing and what have you for cig money. And on and on and on. Prohibiting substances is never the answer.

[skids]

30. Not to mention "nicotine rock"

The resulting easier-to-smuggle, extremely potent, easy to overdose on fad.

(I'm of course being facetous.)

[Jed Dilligan]

10. It's worked so well with marijuana, why not? nt

[JDPriestly]

11. I'm the first to speak up against smoking, but, no, it should not be

made illegal. It isn't a matter of legal or illegal. You can't legislate good health habits. We could, however, regulate the amount of addictive substances in cigarettes so that anything that can addict you is very expensive. I'm not an expert on the science of this (as is obvious), but I have a feeling something along this line could be worked out.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. Nah, just execute all the tobacco addicts

(yes that was sarcastic, but they insist on the "right" to kill me with second hand smoke, so what the hell)

[seabeyond]

59. wtf with the executing. they will die a horrible and painful death

that they well deserve, right........

[porphyrian]

111. You're locked in a room filled with second hand smoke?!

You're more likely to die of an automobile accident than casual brief contact with second hand smoke. Unless you're intentionally sitting in the shit all day, you're overreacting a bit. Airline stewardesses who worked on smoking airlines for sixteen years die from second hand smoke, not whiny behavior control technicians who fake cough because they catch a whiff of burning tobacco in a parking lot.

[SoCalDem]

13. Let's ban donuts & pizza too

I'm willing to bet that "some" of those 2nd-hand smoke victims were not on alfalfa-sprouts & tofu diets:evilgrin:

Life is a terminal condition...:)

[TahitiNut]

46. It's funny how few people I've ever seen wearing filtration masks, too.

Considering the number of toxic things in the air and the OBSESSION folks have with sidestream smoke, I'd expect to see more folks wearing some kind of breathing mask. None. Nada. Funny about that.

[SoCalDem]

48. When we visited our son last year, we ate at a place with an outdoor

area. There were HUGE NO SMOKING signs all over the out door area.. Where was it located??

ONE teensy sidewalk away from the busiest intersection in town, with 4 lanes of traffic in each direction...and the world's longest stoplight...

In fact we asked to be reseated inside because of the exhaust fumes :)

[Texasgal]

50. Good point!

For all those SEVERE asthmatics. :eyes:

I am aware that there are severe asthmatics, but I find it pretty convenient that so many of them come out of the woodwork when you mention smoking.

[TahitiNut]

60. Yes, and despite the MEDICAL FACT that there're no allergens in ETS ...

... it's profoundly amazing to me that so many are 'diagnosed' (by whom?) as "allergic" to tobacco smoke. I guess these people know something that's not yet been discovered. Funny that. (I really think they're going to the wrong doctor. I think another medical specialty is called for. Psychiatry.)

[Texasgal]

63. LOL!

Great Post! :hi:

[NorthernSpy]

132. FWIW, an asthma attack can be triggered by a non-allergen...

This is what happens in what used to be called "intrinsic" asthma. Certain solvent fumes, cold air, hormonal changes, infections, or exercise can cause the airways to clamp down without the classic "allergic" response of itchy eyes and a runny nose.

That said, I think that people really do tend to overstate the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke as an asthma trigger. Being around cigarette smoke gives me a subjective "chokey" feeling in my upper throat, but that is not the same thing as an asthma attack. In fact, in all the conversations that I've had with other asthmatics, I don't remember anyone singling out cigarette smoke as a major trigger (though most of us probably avoid it just to be on the safe side).

[Seansky]

14. I don't smoke and actually hate it, but the last thing we need is another

"addiction" going into prohibition. Remember the war on drugs and its consequences? and what about all the other dozens and dozens new alternatives popping up every year? Making smoking illegal won't solve the problem, in my opinion.

[greatauntoftriplets]

15. Works for me.

n/t

[megatherium]

Good question.

A close relative of mine has stage IV large cell carcinoma of the lungs, caused evidently by 27 years of heavy smoking (even though he quit 27 years ago, but as it happens a large portion of lung cancer happens in former smokers). Survival stats for this malignancy are grim: it has 2% five-year survival rate. We are praying for him as he undergoes his chemotherapy, but we know the score -- he's almost certain to die of this.

I'm a libertarian on these kinds of issues, but I have to say, if they somehow banned smoking, I wouldn't much mind. More realistically, I believe the government should take a more active role in smoking prevention and cessation efforts, to prevent more misery and to lower the financial burden on our society of this preventable major cause of premature mortality.

[Imagevision]

109. Allow the FDA to control the amount of nicotine going into the cigs...

[datadiva]

16. Plus if you make it illegal

someone's going to have to come up with the taxes that smokers pay that others don't. Who's gonna take up the slack?

[xray s]

17. make advertising cigarettes illegal

Ban the promotion of cancer/heart disease/emphysema.

Put them in a plain white box and tax them to pay for all the disease they cause.

Take the profit out of selling death.

After all that, if people still want to smoke they will. Nothing you can do about that.

[spunky]

23. If you are going to tax smokes for cancer costs

tax McDonalds and Lays and Dunkin Donuts and Doritos etc etc for the costs of heart attacks, obesity, strokes etc.

Tax alcohol for the costs of uninsured drunk drivers (repairing cars and people) and hey, why not tax them to reimburse insurance companies on life insurance policies paid out on innocent people killed by drunk drivers.

And tax cell phones for the costs of wrecks caused by talking and driving.

Tax guns for the costs of bullet wounds.

Tax knives for the costs of stab wounds.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I think you see my point.

[NanceGreggs]

35. Well said!!!

I live in Canada, where we have universal health care. A few years ago, people started yelling about the cost to our health care system of smokers who become ill as a result thereof.

So someone decided to crunch the numbers. The result: The taxes collected on tobacco products in a year covered the cost of the medical expenses incurred by EVERY man, woman and child in the country -- three times over!!!!!

Cigarettes will NEVER be made illegal -- there's too much money in it, for the government, via taxes, as well as the manufacturers who have lobbyists to protect their interests.

I just LOVE the irony of any government cracking down on cigarette smokers, while they look the other way when Big Corporations pollute the air, the water table, etc.

When all of the OTHER POLLUTERS are stopped, you can come after ME!

[SidDithers]

92. Interesting claim...

got a cite for it?

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

114. You're one of them there "science worshipers".

Ain't ya?

[SidDithers]

135. Yup, you got me...

no matter how hard I try, woo-wooism just won't take :)

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

136. I keep telling you,

you have to ram your head into a solid wall.

Not those flimsy props like they use on wrestling.

[bbgrunt]

118. exactly.

[xray s]

120. well now

You raise some interesting points.

While McD's and donuts etc can lead to obesity and strokes if eaten to excess, I do not believe any of those products have ingredients that are physically addictive, like nicotine. However, our high fat diet is definitely unhealthy, so a fat / carb tax to pay for health costs may not be a bad idea.

Drunk driving should be heavily fined and their license revoked, like they do in Scandinavia. Drunk drivers that kill shouldn't be taxed. They should be jailed.

The general problem of bad driving (whether caused by cell phones or whatever) is addressed by the insurance rates they pay. Bad drivers pay high rates, that in turn pay those medical bills. So I guess you can make a case the insurance premium is the tax.

Guns and knives don't subtly entice their owners to violence. I would guess 99.9% of the guns and knives in America are never used to harm a human being. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are designed to addict the smoker, with very serious consequences.

[PowerToThePeople]

121. Have you seen Super Size Me?

They do many things to make it addictive.

http://www.supersizeme.com/

[xray s]

123. No I haven't but thanks for the link

always like to learn something new!

[bigwillq]

18. I don't think it should be illegal.

I am a smoker, wish I weren't, but we should have a choice in this manner. Everyone's so Gung Ho on taking our rights away. Yes, I know smoking causes death, cancer and other health problems, but so do a lot of other things. If I'm correct, I believe obesity is now the #1 preventable cause of death in this country. What about OTC meds? Some of those are used to make meth but should they be illegal?--NO.
Alcohol has proven to kill many people and cause disease as well. Shouldn't be illegal either.

[melody]

53. the obesity study you cite had cooked data

Obesity is not a major health risk, so long as one is not BMI 35+ or something. The vast majority of fat people have few or no health risks due to their weight. Heavy smokers do. Even the morbidly obese live only a couple of years less than their thinner brothers and sisters. The margin is so slim that the fattest women still, overall, outlive thin men.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/169

BTW, anyone who wants to respond to me on this issue, please private message me. I don't get into forum discussions on this topic because there's as much vitriol toward fat people as there is toward gay people.

That said, who cares? If we start outlawing things that kill us, we'd have to start with stress. I'd bet running corporations would create more stress on human health than all these other factors combined.

[bigwillq]

58. Thanks for the link.

I will read it when I am not at work. :hi:

[seabeyond]

61. same with the second hand smoke studies, but people dont

want to go there because it doesnt fit their agenda and it allows them to be real asses about smoking.

but i agree with you, that is bullshit study about obesity too. and what we do with the fat in our society. a person that is active and overweight can be as healthy as a person not overweight. and genetics has much more of a play in dying of cancer or heart conditions.

[spunky]

19. No. If I want to pollute my lungs its my business.

You can make me smoke outside if you want, but you cannot (well, should not be able to) tell me what I can and can't do in the great outdoors.

I find the LA ban on smoking in parks the most laughable. Don't they have some of the worst pollution in America?

[Cleita]

20. I know it will work as well as the ban on recreational drugs

in this country. :sarcasm:

I'm a non-smoker myself, but I know it would be really stupid to do this. What are you going to do to the people who get caught smoking? Put them in prison?

A better solution is to have bars and coffee houses that allow smoking. Smoke eaters do a pretty effective job of filtering the smoke out of the air so anyone passing buy don't have to have their noses offended. Non-smokers don't need to patronize those establishments for smokers.

Just my opinion.

[Texasgal]

25. That is the best solution

I've heard thus far. :hi:

Why is it so difficult for people to come to a common resolution on this?

[Neil Lisst]

21. They'll get my cigarettes when they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers

Right to keep and bear arms, and have a smoke after firing off a few rounds.

[William769]

22. Well

Since both sides can't agree, why not just make smoking legal everywhere?

[NanceGreggs]

26. I AM a smoker, and ...

... the solution is a simple one: bars, restaurants, etc. can choose to be smoking or non-smoking establishments, based on the owner's wishes, their client base, and so on.

When I suggest this, non-smokers invariably say, "Yeah, but I might want to go to a restaurant where smoking is allowed."

My response is by way of this example: There is a Mexican restaurant in my neighbourhood (which allows smoking on their outdoor patio in the summer). Even though they play great music, serve great food (as I hear it) and have beautiful decor, I have never eaten there. Why? I hate Mexican cuisine. I do not call them up and demand they add French or Italian dishes to their menu. If you don't like the food, go elsewhere; if you don't like the smoke, go elsewhere.

I live in Toronto, and we've had three bar-restaurant closings within a two-block area in the last few months alone. When smoking was allowed at these places, they were packed all the time.

I have no objection to non-smoking establishments. If I choose not to go there, that's my business. Non-smokers should be as tolerant.

To follow your logic: "It seems that both sides cannot come up with a reasonable solution. So, should it just be banned period?", one could equally say: "It seems that both sides cannot come up with a reasonable solution. So, should we just allow smoking everywhere?"

Sorry to be on a soapbox about this, but I'm really tired of being treated like a second-class citizen because I smoke. My friends and myself have stopped going out to bars and restaurants because of this. Instead, we entertain each other in each other's homes -- which is much cheaper and more enjoyable anyway! The problem is that I actually have a few friends who own bars and/or restaurants, and they are barely hanging on, in today's economy, without the volume of patrons they used to get.

Besides, I may be a smoker, but I am a conscientious non-driver. I LOVE being yelled at on the street (when I deek out for a smoke) by passers-by in their gas-guzzlers, who put more pollution in the air in an hour than the average smoker does in six months. Unfortunately, there are no non-carbon dioxide bubbles over the sidewalks to protect ME from THEM!

Sorry for ranting -- I know you were asking a serious question, and just thought I'd stick up for my side of the issue.

[spunky]

33. The arguement I get against letting businesses decide is

that the waiters and waitresses will be forced to take jobs there and have their lungs polluted.


I'm sure there are plenty of smokers who wait tables. Let them wait tables in the smoking establishments.

[Cleita]

41. That's true. Let the smokers work in smoking establishments

and non-smokers or those willing not to smoke on the job at the non-smoking establishments. Also, smoke-eaters if used in smoking establishments, are pretty effective in removing the smoke from the air, so it should reduce the second hand smoke for those either working in or patronizing those places.

[NanceGreggs]

54. You just reminded me ...

... there is a bar/restaurant a few blocks away. I was approaching it a few weeks ago from the corner across the street and, from that vantage point, one can see both the front door and the side door to the bar.

The three wait staff were huddled around the side door, smoking. Four patrons were huddled outside the front door, smoking.

As I cross the street and looked into the bar, I realized it was empty -- all of the patrons and wait staff were smokers.

This is the silliness of all of this.

We did have a two-year period (which recently expired) where bars and restaurants could declare themselves 'smoking' or 'non-smoking' establishments, based on the owner's wishes. When they changed the bylaw and declared EVERYTHING non-smoking, we were all DUMBSTRUCK -- why? Because the 'choice' system had worked out so well. Non smoking wait staff went to work awt non-smoking places, and vice versa. No one lost business, because customers who left one place simply switched to another.

And it's not just the restaurants and bars that having a hard time financially as a result of this. I take a lot of cabs, and the cab-drivers are also suffering with a lack of business, because so many fewer people go out to eat or drink like they used to.

The powers-that-be in City gov't keep saying that this trend will reverse itself, as people get used to the restrictions. Tell that to the people who have already lost their jobs and their businesses. And that's another chicken soon come home to roost -- empty downtown spots that used to be bars & restaurants that had to close don't generate business taxes for the City.


OKAY -- I'LL SHUT UP NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Texasgal]

36. Oh, and I completely agree with you.

I guess what started this thread was someone before stating that there was someone smoking... OUTSIDE, and the smoke was wafting up 3 floors into his window and bothering him.

Smokers are already forced OUTSIDE in most situations. It seems ridiculous to me the the anti-smoke crowd will still find some way to complain about people's PERSONAL choices.

It just kinda irks me... and I don't even smoke!

[TahitiNut]

40. As I said there, we should bomb Canada!

I can smell the smoke as it drifts across the border! They're forcing us to SMOKE! They're attacking us! They want us all to die of LUNG CANCER! Tobacco smoke is a WMD!

BOMB CANADA! BOMB CANADA! BOMB CANADA! BOMB CANADA! BOMB CANADA!
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Neil Lisst]

37. I smoke but I hate smoke around food, or anyone who doesn't ...

I believe in freedom, so if someone wants to have no smoking or all smoking at their restaurant, I don't care. I vote with my feet and my dollars.

[Texasgal]

42. THANK YOU!

BRAVO!

EXACTLY!!!

This is about personal FREEDOM!

[Cleita]

45. Back in the days when we had smoking and non-smoking

areas in restaurants here in California, some restaurants that had separate bar areas, or patios, made the bar area and patio smoking areas. You could eat there, if you were a smoker and the rest of the place was non-smoking. I think restaurants with liquor licenses or patios could do this.

[txaslftist]

27. Sure. Cause prohibition works so well.....

[mmonk]

28. Sure, that and

drinking alcohol.;-)

[zippy890]

29. Yes, put the smokers into detention camps

where their smoking will only hurt each other. They are sub-human, and morally inferior to every one else.

(sheesh)

[Texasgal]

39. Umm... I guess you did not

get the dripping sarcasm in this thread...

I was seriously waiting for the anti-smoke crowd to come out and say "Yeah, ban smoking"

Sorry if you were confused.

[izzie]

31. Plus sex out side of marriage, all drugs, wine etc. Driving to fast

People who do not go to church on Sunday or Sat, or Fri. Lets get people in line and doing the right thing.I am for it allllllllllllllllllll:smoke: :toast: :boring: :beer:

[damntexdem]

32. No, prohibition doesn't work.

It only causes bigger problems.

Do you like the government telling people how to run their lives in their own homes? Businesses affected by smoking regulations affect the lives of nonsmokers, whether customers or employees.

And, yes, smokers in families DO affect the lives of nonsmokers in families, particularly children. But intervention in families is much more serious than regulation of business.

[MrSlayer]

34. Sure, let's create even more criminals.

What a great idea. Now we can fill the jails with even more people who didn't do anything.

[nashbridges]

38. Sure, and while we're at it

We may as well ban dying, too. It makes people sad, cemeteries would make wonderful golf courses, and the racket that funeral homes have going needs to stop.

/sarcasm

The problem with banning cigarettes is that inevitably people will want to ban other things as well. I smoke, but I'm not overweight. Do I get a "not fat" credit to counteract my "smoking" demerit? And what if they ban Krispy Kreme? I'd have to start a war!

[Broken_Hero]

43. No, not banned...

there is a line or middle ground for sure, but people have to remember, no matter what, no matter what the issue, not EVERYONE will be happy with it. I'm an ex smoker, i'm past 5 months of non smoking, and i feel better, but i'm not going to try and take away a right or privilege, or choice from anyone...this is america, its suppose to be about choice, not what Mr. or Mrs so and so thinks down the street, its about choices...i choose to stop smoking, thats my choice, if i go into a bar, and there is smokers in there, its my choice to stay or leave...and i stay, because my will power is mine to control...

I have quit other drugs during my life, including heroin, meth, cocaine, weed, extascy, and alcohol to name a few, and i finally turned my attentio to smoking...and now, i'm dealing witht hat, because no matter what subastance you quit, the temptation will always be there, on a big degree, or on a smaller degree...its a day to day battle for some, if not most...well, thats another few cents from my POV...:)

[Neil Lisst]

44. Rules Smokers should follow

1. Don't smoke around anyone who isn't a smoker.

2. Don't smoke in any environment which you do not own or control, unless you have permission from the host or place of business.

3. If you're going around nonsmokers, change clothes after you've smoked last, so your stinking smell doesn't foul the air.

4. Brush your teeth and use breath mints. Your breath stinks.

[NanceGreggs]

65. RULES for NON-SMOKERS ...

DON'T tell smokers what to do, especially when they're smoking on the street in a downtown area where the pollution from the cars, buses, trucks, etc., is a thousand times more lethal.

DON'T constantly tell smokers that they're ruining their health -- especially when you're two hundred pounds over-weight and are standing there sucking on a milkshake while you're ranting.

DON'T EVER tell a smoker not to smoke in their own home (and yuo'd be AMAZED how many times people have done this to me in my own HOUSE)!

As for people with BAD BREATH and SMELLY CLOTHES, what about the people who are guilty of that AND DON'T SMOKE??????????

[Texasgal]

66. ROFLMAO!!!

Good point!!

I've smelled some of the nastiest smells ever from people who are not smokers!

Let's make BAD BREATH illegal too! :)

[Jade Fox]

74. Thank You!

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. I will not tell you about the man who made me throw up my

dinner because his body odor was SOOOOOOO baaaaaaad. Nope. I'm not gonna tell you about THAT NON SMOKER...nope, just not gonna do it.

[seabeyond]

128. lol lol or while i was pregnant, the woman that wore soooo much

perfume i was gagging and dry heaving, running out of a restaraunt to get away from her,..... and didnt get to eat my meal i really really wanted.

nope wont tell you about her either.

[PatriotGames]

47. I thought smoking was illegal... Oh wait, you mean cigarettes!

No I do not think it should be illegal. If you ban smokes, you have to ban alchohol. We all know how that went.

[PowerToThePeople]

77. Hehe, I emailed theantidrug.com, other day. This is response...

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

Thank you for contacting TheAntiDrug.com. We appreciate you taking
the time to share your comments with us regarding our program and
your support for NORML. Your comments have been noted.

Thank you,

TheAntiDrug.com


On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:33:08 -0400 you wrote:

>The AntiDrug Contact Form
>
>Name: xxxxxx
>Email Address: [e-mail]
>Time: 10/22/2005 3:33:08 PM
>Message:
>
>I have heard your advertisement alot on talk radio. Sorry to say,
but I
>will support NORML long before your group. Try spending your time
doing
>some good in the world instead of stepping into people's personal
lives.
>
>
>
>

[oregonindy]

49. nah...but let us non smokers sue for assault with a deadly weapon.

[Texasgal]

51. Great idea...

Let's just back up the courts even more! :sarcasm:

[PowerToThePeople]

83. If I walk into a knife? My stupidity. Walk into a bar...

you darn well know there is smoke inside, no ones fault but your own.

[johnnie]

52. I don't think so

But I know that if anyone comes into my home, they better smoke. I don't let anyone in to my house unless they smoke.

[NanceGreggs]

62. My husband and I are the same way ...

... when people come over for the first time and ask if they can smoke, we always tell them SMOKING IS MANDATORY!!!!

[KT2000]

55. Ban yard chemicals

people contaminate entire neighborhoods with products that are neurotoxic - as in brain damaging chemicals.
Besides various cancer, they are implicated in parkinson's, alzheimers, learning disabilities, malformed fetuses, asthma, allergies, cardio problems and more. The ones most affected are children and fetuses.

Tobacco smoke is providing cover for some terrible chemical assaults from other sources. We need some balance here.

Also - did you know that they are allowed to put hawardous waste into these products? expecially fertilizer.

[in_cog_ni_to]

56. Hell no. Just don't give the smokers anywhere to smoke.

:sarcasm: That seems to be where the LIBERALS wish to go with this.

[in_cog_ni_to]

57. Instead, ban cars. They're worse and are a luxury item also. n/t

[Jose Diablo]

67. Well, I am not gonna comment and kick this thread to the top

Nope, not me.

[sendero]

69. As long as we can..

... make being stupid illegal also, that would be fine.

And while we're at it, fatty foods, alcohol, Southpark, porn, gambling, hell why not -sex.

[Neil Lisst]

70. Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette!

Puff, puff, puff, until you puff yourself to death!

That song predates all the smoking warnings, btw.

[booley]

71. what's unreasonable about smoking outside?

Prohibitions don't work and personally if someone wants to have a slow agonizing death, that's thier business.

But smoke outside where I don't have to smoke with you just becuase we are both breathing the same air.

[NanceGreggs]

80. We're both breathing the same air ...

... so why should I have to breathe all of the pollutants that come from cars, buses, trucks, corporate smokestacks, etc.?

I don't drive (can, but I don't), but I have to live with car fumes every day of my life. And as I've said, there is no 'no driving fumes section' of any city I've ever lived in, or visited.

[mondo joe]

91. Perhaps you've heard of emissions controls, catalytic converters and so

on. Maybe you've heard of the Kyoto Protocols.

[mondo joe]

72. Nope. I am against people being subjected to second hand smoke, just

like I'm against drunk driving. But so long as you can keep your substances to yourself I don't believe it SHOULD be anyone's choice but yours.

[Raine]

73. I HATE smoking

but I don't think making it illegal would stop it, it would just drive it underground. I would have to say NO to it being illegal.

[LincolnMcGrath]

75. Are you married? Have children?

[PowerToThePeople]

76. not again. ugh... No. And, I am not full time smoker.

Just when I am at the bar.

[beam me up scottie]

78. No, just ban it in public places.

Make that enclosed public places.

Let people do what they want in their own homes and cars.

[mondo joe]

81. Agreed. And as soon as we have a means to keep the toxins

restricted to only the body of the smoker I'll support a greater range.

[PowerToThePeople]

82. My #1 method of doing this...

[mondo joe]

84. Congratulations.

Good luck finding a restaurant with a spittoon.

[PowerToThePeople]

87. spittoon? Don't need no stinkin' spitoon...

[beam me up scottie]

97. I don't know why this is so difficult.

I smoked for twenty years and never minded going outside to light up.
I knew it was poison for me and the people I cared about.
The least I could do was protect them.

I got a question.

I work with all smokers (except for one salesman who's on the road).

My coworkers smoke up to a total of 100 cigarettes per day.

I am forced to breathe in the smoke.

Now, what if I was pregnant and the baby was born with problems that could have been caused by smoking?

Can I sue my employer?

And if not, why?

[mondo joe]

99. Scottie, does it strike you as odd that dems on the whole tend to

support health and environmental causes --- like emissions controls, pollution, the Kyoto Protocols and so on --- but some don't see any connection to polluting the bodies of the people near them?

[beam me up scottie]

105. Hell yes.

I felt guilty smoking around my fish.

If you know it's poison, why would you want to force others to breathe it?

Geez, why not start early and stick a butt in your 5-year old's mouth?

[mondo joe]

110. Thanks. Hard to see why dems condemn Bush for the Clean Skies

Initiative or backing out of Kyoto, but if you want to eat dinner without breathing in their toxins you're some sort of Freeper.

[in_cog_ni_to]

116. Hard to see why Liberals like to tell other people what to do.

Sounds like a repuke to me. If you want to have dinner where people don't smoke...GO TO A FREAKIN' RESTAURANT THAT BANS SMOKING! I have a choice and so do you. I don't eat at restaurants that don't allow smoking. THAT IS A CHOICE. Why can't anti smokers make the CHOICE to NOT eat at restaurants that do allow smoking? WTF? Do you have to have control over EVERY freakin' restaurant and bar? Damn. Talk about whiny. Sheesh.

[mondo joe]

126. I don't, except when what they're doing poisons others.

But nice to see some libertarian attitudes on DU. :-)

[Mr_Spock]

79. Not this again.

Dayum, we must be bored while waiting for the good stuff to happen :D

[porphyrian]

85. No, it's entirely unnecessary to do so.

Non-smokers can go to their businesses and smokers can go to their businesses. If a place has to have both types of customers, smokers can go outside. If that isn't good enough for someone, fuck them.

[mondo joe]

88. Or the electorate can decide to ban smoking in some public areas.

You know, power to the people and all.

[porphyrian]

89. What, you're not going to contradict me?

I thought we had a relationship here.

[PowerToThePeople]

90. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time

I see how this is going..

[mondo joe]

93. Go ahead. Last night you twice said you were so upset you'd have to

leave the thread only to come back.

I'm addictive and you can't resist me.

[PowerToThePeople]

95. Mondo Joe. Sounds like a good cig name.

You must be right, I am addicted =)

[mondo joe]

96. Do you believe the people have the right to regulate commerce?

Can you decide?

[PowerToThePeople]

98. Dear sir. I answered this last night. But here it is again.

Yes, people should regulate commerce. Smoking is not commerce. Smoking is an act that a person partakes in. There is no transfer of funds involved in the act, therefore it is not commerce.

So, your point in saying that regulating commerce equates regulating smoking, is nonsensical.

Thank you.

[mondo joe]

101. Bars and restaurants are commerce. What takes place in those businesses

is part of commerce.

Do you believe in the power of the people to regulate commerce?

[mmonk]

106. Do they have designated drivers for smokers?

[mmonk]

86. I've got something better

the death penalty for parking violations.

[mmonk]

94. Organized crime would do such a better job

handling the cigarette market.

[beyurslf]

102. Another smoking thread.... beats another Fritzmas thread...

[mondo joe]

104. Should smoking be banned on Fitzmas?

[JerseygirlCT]

108. I think we need to move in the direction we're moving

smoking needs to continue to be less and less acceptable. Not because we need to tell people what to do, but because smoking doesn't just effect the smoker. Second-hand smoke effects everyone around, and the costs of smoking effect us all.

I think we need to start with vigorous movement toward the elimination of all government tobacco subsidies. It's ludicrous that we pay to grow this stuff.

I think smoking bans in public places are right on. I shouldn't suffer because of someone else's addiction. Nor should my children.

Treatment should be available to help people stop. (And lots should be made available to help others with chemical addictions - the lack of drug treatment options in the country is a stupid, wasteful shame).

Education continues to be important. Societal pressure will continue, and ultimately that will probably be the most helpful thing.

I think local ordinances combined with getting the feds out of the tobacco business are the way to go.

[GreenArrow]

115. Why Stop With Smoking? Why Not Just Make Living Illegal.

Everyone does something that pisses someone else off, and no one wants to pay for someone elses mistakes, especially when the mistake is something that pisses them off to begin with, and since any of us can fit into that category somewhere, fuck the lot of us. None of us should be able to do anything that any others of us might disaprove of. If you engage in unprotected sex, you can get AIDS, or other STDS, or you might end up with a baby that you don't want or can't take care of, so we might as well start there, and make unprotected sex illegal, especially out of wedlock. I ain't payin' for that shit, not with MY money.

[in_cog_ni_to]

117. Excellent post! This can be a VERY dangerous road they wish to go down.

Not very smart, IMCPO.

[Booster]

122. The United States will NEVER make smoking totally illegal.

For the simple reason if they did then they couldn't export cigarettes to other countries and that's where the money is.
It's all about the money.

[laureloak]

125. I would like to see it become inaccessible by whatever

means necessary.

I would support a ban on all public smoking or even more extreme measures.

[DanCa]

127. Must remain neutreal - what was that in Superman one?

You cannot interfere in human destiny my son, they are a great people they only need you to show them away.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

129. Why not, after all Prohibition worked so well.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[applegrove]

131. Make it hard. It will save lives. smoking is such a strong addiction.

It is really sad that people get so sick at 50 and then die so young.

I am a smoker. And making it illegal in more and more places will just help me quit.

[enigmatic]

133. no, no, no

I'm a non-smoker; have been since I was 15.

[NaturalHigh]

134. I don't smoke in my own house...

because I don't want to subject my wife (asthmatic) and kids to my fumes. However, I think it's my business to go outside and smoke where I'm not hurting anyone but myself. It's amazing how many people will rant and rave that marijuana should be legal but cigarettes should be banned.

[upi402]

137. too many rules turn off people

leave the sportsmen, bikers, and smokers to exercise their liberty and we will atract more people than we turn away.