Tobacco Illegal

[Ganico]

Man, it's been cultural here since the beginning. I don't know what the hell you're talking about, seriously.

 

[7ate9]

Man, it's been cultural here since the beginning. I don't know what the hell you're talking about, seriously.

I'm glad it's cultural to be stupid, does everyone live under power lines too?

 

[Pops]

I am a smoker and I stopped smoking in my own house when my ex-wife quit almost 30 years ago. There was no law and she did not require it. I just decided that it would be easier for her to quit permanately if I smoked outside. You would be surprised how quickly you can smoke a cigarette when it is 20 degrees below zero outside. As a partial result, none of my children smoke(cigarettes).

As a smoker, I support the rights of both smokers and non-smokers. It is unfortunate that much of the "science" that proves second hand smoke to be cancerous, is the same government "voodoo" science that says pot is addictive and causes mental problems.
When the government decides what you can put in your body, you live in a totalitarian society.

 

[Ganico]

I'm glad it's cultural to be stupid, does everyone live under power lines too?

Well yeah most people in the city do, there's powerlines everywhere.

No need to be such an ass

 

[7ate9]

Well yeah most people in the city do, there's powerlines everywhere.

No need to be such an ass

Sorry, I just find smoking to be incredibly disgusting and don't see why people can't keep it private.

 

[Guest]

When I was living in vancouver some of the bars had installed little atmospherically sealed smoking rooms, they were about 4x6 feet and people were jammed in shoulder to shoulder smoking their brains out. There was a cloud of smoke that started around your lower chest and went right to the roof that beat out any hotbox session I have ever witnessed. Going in there for half an hour seemed like a good way to shave a week or two off my life expectancy and I could not believe people were lined up for their turn in this thing. Meanwhile it's summer and the doors to outside are 15 feet away from the smoking box, WTF? It bothers me to see fellow human beings take their health and say 'awwwwww **** it!'

 

[Pops]

The same government that is banning smoking has been one of the tobacco industries greatest allies for decades. The government has made trillions off smoking and now state governments have been suing the tobacco industry and getting more billions. In California, there is an $8 a carton tax on cigarettes. A carton of cheap cigarettes cost $5 from the manufacturer,but you have to add $2 for a Federal tax. You then add $8 more for Cali as well as sales tax, which adds another $2. Well over half the cost of a carton of cigarettes is tax. I know of no other commodity that is as heavily taxed and aimed at one special segment of the population. Perhaps we would see more outrage if the government chose to tax coffee. After all, we went to war over a tax on tea,didn't we?

 

[Ganico]

Cause you pay hella taxes and prices on it, the gvmnt profits of it, but you can't smoke it in public? You gotta now all of the damn sudden hide away and smoke it like it's ****ing illegal, like you're a junkie? Why even pay these taxes for it then? Common people will just start selling/buying black markey non-taxed tobacco and save/make a lot of money if that's the case. Common people will now be "drug dealers", "criminals"etc. Just like with weed. (And before anyone says it, of course tobacco is worse than weed. That's irrelevant )


That's like saying "here, buy these cookies for our bake sale.......... WHY ARE YOU EATING THAT COOKIE HERE? THAT COOKIE SMELL IS BOTHERING ME, YOU ARE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO ONLY EAT COOKIES UNDER A TINFOIL BLANKET IN YOUR HOUSE, GET AWAY FROM MY BAKE SALE"


Now by law you can't even smoke cigarettes in a tobacco shop. That is just maniacal

 

[Ganico]

Pops- EXACTLY. Y'all need to listen to Pops.

 

[Rufid]

A wise man once said "stop the world,I wanna get off".
I can't stand cig's,but fck'n a ,I'm tired of this repressive,controll bullshit.Wonder why Bush put the old veto into use on the child health care package?Should make some of you smoker's a little more content with his policies!

 

[East Valley]

pay as much tax as you want you still cant justify FORCING others to breath your carcinogenic laden smoke. you pay that tax because of all the damage smoke has done and continues to do. yes its the same government taxing you that has worked with the tobacco companies....can we take a step forward?

the other side of the arguement...: but cars put out nasty stuff too!

well yeah but they are productive.

 

[Guest]

a pack of 20 Marlborough in the uk costs $11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so its not just a health issue

 

[Pops]

In California, some of the Liberals want to fund health care for children by adding another $10 to the cigarette tax. What happens to this health care when half the smokers quit because of the high cost or decide to start buying black market cigs? How do you pay for the program then except by taxing the hell out of something else. When you let politicians starts taxing one segment of the population heavily because they are doing something unpopular, you are opening Pandora's Box. What will the politicians tax next, when they need a program that will get them re-elected.

 

[Ganico]

Grocery Stores? Cool, It would be lame if a wonderful smelling place like the bakery stunk of cigarette butts. Gas Stations? Um, with all them gas fumes floatin' around, it's really a judgment call (and common sense), but if you catch on fire while holding a cig, I'll just laugh. Bars? Well, I don't go to bars, never will. If I did though, I would be damn mad if it was full of smoke.
Some bars should allow smoking though, like if there are two bars near each other one should be the smoking one and the other one not be.

What the hell is wrong with you? I said not being able to smoke in grocery stores makes sense. And that comment about the gas stations? You don't just catch on fire from holding a cigarette at a gas station. Getting into your car and then back out after you started pumping is more likely to blow you up than HOTBOXING a cigarette while pumping gas, that's a fact.

But guess what? It's not illegal to smoke OUTSIDE a gas station, right by a pump. It is however illegal to smoke INSIDE a gas station. So that gas station remark you made was completely irrelevant

And as far as bars go? If you're swallowing glasses full of poison I think you can handle a little second hand smoke.
There definitely shouldn't be a law banning smoking in all bars regardless. Owners of bars can't even legally smoke tobacco in their own bars anymore

 

[Pops]

Originally non-smokers had no rights:now smokers have no rights. At one time woman and blacks had few rights, now they have advantages. Dead people have never had rights: now,in Chicago, the dead can vote up to 5 times. Times change!

 

[Tarkus]

If you are swallowing glasses full of poison then you certainly shouldn't mind a little weed, but not everyone that drinks also smokes weed. That is their preference, but they shouldn't have to sit in a room full of weed smoke just to get a drink. Just like cigarettes. They could just drink at home, but then again so could the smokers. But I never thought every bar should be non-smoking.
And I agree with you in that it makes sense in a grocery store. I have never been in a grocery store that allowed you to smoke in it and I am glad they don't.

 

[East Valley]

I dont think this makes a whole lot of sense, "your'e already doing that so you shouldn't mind this."

 

[stizzle]

I don't think there should be any government intervention except their own federal buildings. Restaurant and bar owners should be able to make their own smoking policies and have their business suffer or grow because of it.

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

It is unfortunate that much of the "science" that proves second hand smoke to be cancerous, is the same government "voodoo" science that says pot is addictive and causes mental problems.

The pissy old man usually makes a lot of sense to me, but I'd like to put some perspective on this.
IMO, there's ample scientific proof of harmful effects of both primary and secondary tobacco smoke, coming not only from governement sponsored research but also independent studies.
The studies that point out weaknesses or doubts in this research are almost exclusively sponsored by the multinational tobacco industry, such as Philip Morris. This is the famous "we don't know for sure if it's dangerous, so therefore we cannot legislate against it" argument that Philip Morris have backed through the 80's and 90's with various studies arriving at inconclusive results. So, while Philip Morris have invested enormous sums of money in research on tobacco and smoking, officially to shed light on the matter, they've used (and probably 'arranged') this research to slow down anti-smoking legislation.

When it comes to Cannabis, the picture is entirely different. Government sponsored research in various countries have spared no means to search for harmful effects from Cannabis use, in order to justify the bans already in place. While they've found little or nothing, they've still blown dubious indications of harmful effects out of proportions to produce the desired results.
There is no organization with the resources of Philip Morris to defend the cause of Cannabis. But, even though it has been shown that - as an example - the American governement steer Cannabis research studies in the 'right' direction by systematically sponsoring studies 'hostile' to Cannabis, while they pull away funds to studies 'friendly' to Cannabis (see Scientific American, nov 2004), independent studies repeatedly show no or almost no ill effects from Cannabis.

Rather than comparing government sponsored Tobacco and Cannabis research, I'd like to compare government sponsored Cannabis research to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

"Iraq is stock-piling Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is why we must intervene."
"If we don't see any Weapons of Mass Destruction, it's because they're hidden. But eventually, we'll find them."

 

[greenhead]

Smoking in bars & restaurants should be 100% up to the owners. Having a 100% ban against smoking in bars & restaurants like certain cities have is a fascist and totalitarian law supported by anti-smoking nazis and other asshats of varying degrees.

Anybody who is not a hypocritical moron and who believes in the free market system should support a business deciding for themselves if they were to allow smoking or not. To totally ban anybody from even opening up a bar or establishment where their customers are allowed to smoke is extremely fascist like and anybody on here who supports such laws doesn't even deserve to have marijuana legalized eventually.

Let the free market decide. Open up two identical bars next to each other, one would be 100% smoking, while the other is 100% non-smoking. People would choose to go into whichever one they wanted to. If they both survive, then fine. If one of them goes out of business eventually, then that would be a failed business venture, without the market to support that idea. Don't ban a business from even opening up a bar that only caters to smokers, if that's what they wish. As far as I'm concerned, going out and occasionally getting hammered & smoking go hand in hand. If you don't like it, then simply don't go there you totalitarian wanker..

If society is going to begin to ban various things that a certain group of people find offensive or dangerous, then those same people that support those bans had better watch out, because something which they participate in might be next on the list.