Forums | MacLife

registered_user wrote:

So I'm a little upset that the state has passed this law.  While it does protect my right to cleaner air on other people's property, it clearly doesn't go far enough.  Smoking should be illegal entirely...

How about automobile exhaust? Are you upset when that comes on your property?

When a neighbor decides to have a fire in his living room fireplace, do you complain when the smoke vents his chimney and drifts across your property?

And lastly, if RI does move to make it "illegal entirely", are you prepared for the added tax you will have to pay that won't be collected on cigarette revenue?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

You can raise taxes on all kinds of things and thereby hurt sales, but there will always be armies of junkies willing to pay any price to get their nic fix.

Up here in Canada, cigarette taxes average $30 a carton. No, that's not the final price, that's the amount of taxes charged per carton. People grumble like hell, but they can get away with it because those addicted chumps will pay any price.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

It's an addiction, however.  It would be like taxing Claritin or Viagra.  It's as if they're extorting the people.

Camp David wrote:

How about automobile exhaust? Are you upset when that comes on your property?

When a neighbor decides to have a fire in his living room fireplace, do you complain when the smoke vents his chimney and drifts across your property?

And lastly, if RI does move to make it "illegal entirely", are you prepared for the added tax you will have to pay that won't be collected on cigarette revenue?

Yes, yes, and yes.  The last one isn't about money, it's about protecting the people.  Isn't just one life worth it?

registered_user wrote:

Yes, yes, and yes.  The last one isn't about money, it's about protecting the people.  Isn't just one life worth it?

Yes I agree, but I'll hold out support until RI decides to be consistent and ban automobiles for the very same reason! If one life is worth it, as you suggest, than thousands should give it added impetus!

Camp David wrote:

registered_user wrote:

Yes, yes, and yes.  The last one isn't about money, it's about protecting the people.  Isn't just one life worth it?

Yes I agree, but I'll hold out support until RI decides to be consistent and ban automobiles for the very same reason! If one life is worth it, as you suggest, than thousands should give it added impetus!

The difference is that automobile exhaust doesn't make my clothing smell like smoke, and there are already stringent guidelines governing automotive exhaust indoors.  No sense lumping automobiles in the same group. 

Happily, we're beginning to see sweeping changes in the automotive industry to provide cleaner cars.  Some are even using electricity!  With any luck, they'll be responsible on their own before there is need to legislate them any further.

registered_user wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Smoking bans are stupid...and anti-smoking zealots seem completely incapable of compromise.

But what about the people who are dying of lung cancer?  Something has to be done.

They can stay home, or go to park.

I don't think I understand your position.  Smoking affects us all, not just the people who are incapable of working anywhere else but smoky rooms.

bratboy wrote:

Smoking bans are stupid...and anti-smoking zealots seem completely incapable of compromise.

Tell that to my wife who has severe asthma as a result of growing up with parents that smoke.

registered_user wrote:

I don't think I understand your position.  Smoking affects us all, not just the people who are incapable of working anywhere else but smoky rooms.

AIDS, STDs, and the various transmitted diseases affects us all; but I don't hear of anyone banning all sexual and biological contact; automobile accidents affect us all, but I don't hear of anyone banning all automobiles. Get the idea?

I'm sure if you work in a "smoky room" you can work somewhere else; most buildings today are smoke free, and most smokers are very accomodating. Have you talked to the smokers about your problem?  Have you sought accomodation and tried all work arounds?

You might find some accomodation by offering accomodation: just banning something outright, or in favor of such, is not accomodation by any means...

bratboy wrote:

Kirk wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Smoking bans are stupid...and anti-smoking zealots seem completely incapable of compromise.

Tell that to my wife who has severe asthma as a result of growing up with parents that smoke.

Wow.  Parents shouldn't smoke around their children.  That's kind of a no-brainer...and smoking bans do not prevent parents from smoking around their children.

But shouldn't they?

Camp David wrote:

registered_user wrote:

I don't think I understand your position.  Smoking affects us all, not just the people who are incapable of working anywhere else but smoky rooms.

AIDS, STDs, and the various transmitted diseases affects us all; but I don't hear of anyone banning all sexual and biological contact; automobile accidents affect us all, but I don't hear of anyone banning all automobiles. Get the idea?

I'm sure if you work in a "smoky room" you can work somewhere else; most buildings today are smoke free, and most smokers are very accomodating. Have you talked to the smokers about your problem?  Have you sought accomodation and tried all work arounds?

You might find some accomodation by offering accomodation: just banning something outright, or in favor of such, is not accomodation by any means...

Don't you understand that smoking is not healthy?  Nothing good comes from it.  Nothing at all.

The people of the state have decided that the right to clean air trumps the right to smoke, so why is it still permitted? 

Your comparisons don't enter because the state hasn't banned them yet.

registered_user wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Kirk wrote:

Tell that to my wife who has severe asthma as a result of growing up with parents that smoke.

Wow.  Parents shouldn't smoke around their children.  That's kind of a no-brainer...and smoking bans do not prevent parents from smoking around their children.

But shouldn't they?

Are you going to tell people that they can't smoke in their own home?

Last edited by bratboy (2005-03-04 10:54 am)

bratboy wrote:

At many bars, patrons order from a bartender.  If you wanted to have a cocktail waitress....show me a bar where there isn't a single cocktail waitress who smokes, or who wouldn't be willing to work in that area.  Or allow for outside areas that are smoking, at the very least.

Then the bartender is forced to work in smoky areas.  You can't expect a private company that only cares about profit to care about the health of the bartender.  Companies don't care about anything but money.

bratboy wrote:

Are you going to tell people that they can't smoke in their own home?

Isn't that what we're really after?  Isn't that congruous to the principles behind this law?

Hank Rearden wrote:

Canada, California, and now (drum roll please) Rhode Island...(and, you can doubtless add to this list)

=NANNY STATE

'nuff said.

Nanny state?  Don't you hail from the land of socialized health care?  Surely you see that the state exists to protect its citizens.  You can use your slurs all you like, but it's the purpose of a state to defend the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens.  At least it is here where people are free.