|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397 |
I smoke (you can say whatever you want about it I don't care) and I don't see what the big deal is with the bans other than the point that was brought up about govt control. They did this in Cali several years ago and people [censored]&whined about it...waaah. I've always been very respectful towards non smokers, if everyone else did the same this never would've been an issue. I don't mind having to walk outside to smoke, I smoke less that way anyhow.
The thing I do find funny about the whole anti smoking campaign is no one who's all for getting rid of cigarettes has anything to say about alcohol and I'd be willing to bet there's about as many if not more alchol related deaths in the U.S. every year as opposed to smoking. Thing is they slant the stats on it...if someone dies of natural causes or some unexplained reason or something like that and they happened to be a smoker then the anti smoking people call that a cigarette related death.
Basically it boils down to cigarettes are no longer socially acceptable but alcohol still is. Plus, most of the people on Capitol Hill are boozers anyway so there's no way they're gonna hit the alcohol companies. But I do wonder about this: Did all this anti smoking crap start simply because some of the tobacco company lobbyists didn't pay enough campaign contributions? Given the way out political system works in this day and age I think that's a plausible theory.
Formerly known as Sneaku
I MISS MY BABY!!!
'00 Blk CSVT #1087/2150 built 12/23/99
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
Originally posted by Freakshow:
Basically it boils down to cigarettes are no longer socially acceptable but alcohol still is.
Exactly!
Though I do like the smoke free air now... 
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 631
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 631 |
Alcohol is good for you now remember!  2 glasses a week will make you live longer etc!! They have yet to say two packs a week are good for you.
05 Legacy GT Turbo 5speed
99 SVT GRN/TAN (sold)
06 Ford Explorer EBv8
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by neelnug:
Alcohol is good for you now remember! 2 glasses a week will make you live longer etc!!
I'm gonna live forever!!!!!!!
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772 |
Originally posted by zenboy:
Originally posted by sigma:
If drunk drivers had sirens and big flashing signs on them that say "I'm a drunk driver move away" we might not have to have a law.
Sure. Good thing all those smokers throughout the decades have had those "My smoke might kill you" neon signs.
Originally posted by sigma:
One does not have the opportunity to go somewhere else and avoid a drunk driver before you are killed. Nor can you politely ask that the drunk driver not drive before you are killed.
How many times have you asked someone to put out their cigarette because you didn't want to breathe their second-hand smoke? Most extend their middle finger, I would imagine. Some would be considerate and comply, but only some. Not all.
Yes, one does have the opportunity to go somewhere else and avoid being killed by a drunk driver. Don't go near a road, off-road path, or body of water, and you won't have to worry about it. Just the same as choosing not to go near anywhere someone might be generating some tasty second-hand smoke.
Originally posted by sigma:
And most importantly, note the difference between government regulating what a people can and cannot do within their own business, and the government regulating what people can and cannot do on government property (roads).
Sure. Better yet, let's note the fact that in both cases, drunk driving and smoking, it's a question of whether or not one person's choices can be allowed to endanger the safety of another person. This is where government performs its function ââ?¬â?? by helping to establish policies (read: laws) that protect individuals' rights without infringing on other people's rights.
Smoking-ban advocates that engage in the drunk-driving analogy make at best a specious arguement.
The roads are open to some extent to all. ANYONE can legally be a passenger in a motor vehicle on a public road.
This is why the government protects those who are using the roads in the manner intended.
However, NOONE has an ABSOLUTE right to enter private property (i am sure that we can all agree that the US Constitution provides protection from government agents entering private property without just cause and permission from a court, and citizens can be charged under tresspassing laws). A bar or resturant, or other business, may be "open" to the public, but they have a right to refuse service or entrance. I'm sure we all know at least one jerk who was "banned" from a bar.
As long as the property owner is engaged in a legal activity, it is none of your business what that activity is.
Where is the ACLU on this issue? They will back your right to put a porno shop across from a school, but I have yet to hear them stand up for bar and resturant owners who wish to allow the legal activity of adults smoking on their property. Again, liberalism has twisted many minds.
former owner, 95 SE MTX
02 Ford Explorer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Man I doubt an anti-smoking law would pass here in Vienna. So many people smoke in the clubs and bars. Hell I don't smoke and I bum a smoke sometime in the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
