It's about time for No Smoking!!!

sportsmaniac38 · 06-01-2007, 12:06 PM

I can't believe it took N.H. this long to go smoke free. I never realized how bad it was. Having gone to college in N.H. I was used to going home every night and smelling of smoke. Then when I graduated I moved back home to Mass (thats right I'm a Masshole, lets not cry about that now) and I loved it down there with the no smoking. I came back to a bar in N.H. a couple months later and could not stand it. I don't know how I ever dealt with it. You guys are going to love it now that it is smoke free. This is the greatest thing N.H. has done in a while. Alright there is my two cents

dmjr · 06-01-2007, 09:05 PM

Honestly, I have to agree, it is about time NH finally came through with a smoking ban. Being a non smoker, I can barely tolerate places that were smoke filled.

ApS · 06-02-2007, 03:53 AM

Sir Walter Raleigh did the world no favor by introducing tobacco. It's gone.

Good.

MJM · 06-02-2007, 07:39 AM

I am a non-smoker (a "never did smoke-er", really), and hate being around smoke. But I do not want the government to increase their control. I CHOOSE not to go to smokey places. Smokers can CHOOSE to go to smoke-free bars and not smoke. This latest errosion of individual choice makes me sad.

Why not just make cigs illegal? (Hint: $$$$)

SAMIAM · 06-02-2007, 08:34 AM

I don't smoke either but owners should make the call not the government.There are far more illness' and deaths attributed to alcohol abuse....should we ban that too? How about fast food? Seems like some people are so used to the government running their lives that they welcome every new intrusion.They must be happy because the moonbats are winning.

Tired of Waiting · 06-02-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsmaniac38

(thats right I'm a Masshole, lets not cry about that now)

Smoking, not smoking,,,,, What gets me smoking is the use of this derogatory name. Nuff said.

ToW

mcdude · 06-02-2007, 09:49 AM

Now if they could just ban people who wear copious amounts of perfume or cologne from coming into a restaurant, sitting down near you, and ruining your whole meal with their stench....

RLW · 06-02-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdude

Now if they could just ban people who wear copious amounts of perfume or cologne from coming into a restaurant, sitting down near you, and ruining your whole meal with their stench....

Why? It is a lot better than BO isn't it??

RLW · 06-02-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJM

I am a non-smoker (a "never did smoke-er", really), and hate being around smoke. But I do not want the government to increase their control.

May I ask?? Who voted the people in that are making these decision that none of you care for??

ITD · 06-02-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLW

Why? It is a lot better than BO isn't it??

Nope, people think it covers up BO but it just smells like bad perfume mixed with BO, or BOfume or BOlogne. Toxic in close quarters.

jeffk · 06-02-2007, 01:12 PM

Society was gradually taking care of this problem all by itself. A law is not needed. I do not smoke and never have. I have a sinus reaction to heavy smoke that clogs my breathing. Considering all that I, personally, do not like smoking. When I was younger I ran into cigarette smoke all over the place but gradually smoking has been phased out of hospitals, work places, public buildings, most restaurants, airplanes, and a lot of other places to the point where I can't remember the last time I was around smokers to the point of being bothered by it. Most of these changes required no laws to make it happen. Even the public building changes required laws simply because that is how public spaces are managed, through laws.

Some places, like bars, are the last bastions of the smoke filled room and as I have gotten older I find myself in them very infrequently. Even when younger I didn't hang out in bars too often, partly because of the dense smoke. My choice. There are many cocktail lounges available today that are nonsmoking.

The sad thing about this to me is not that I need protection from the smokers that I less frequently notice but the damage that they do to themselves. People tend to think of cancer as the biggest problem but smoking causes all sorts of degenerative breathing problems as you get older. My wife is a nurse and before hospitals became non smoking she had patients who struggled to breathe and were on oxygen. They had a had time going for walks because they ran out of breath. But they dragged themselves down to the smoking lounge to have a cigarette. Although self inflicted, very pathetic.

What I find even worse is that many of those patients started smoking before the full dangers were really known. Today, when it should be clearly understood that smoking is like playing Russian roulette with the gun 3/4 loaded, we still have so many young people starting up this deadly habit. I makes me stop to consider the self destructive tendencies of the human race.

fatlazyless · 06-02-2007, 02:42 PM

Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and General Ike Eisenhauer were all regular cigarette smokers. Dick Nixon had quit cigarettes and switched to cigars before becoming pres.

Smoking gets such bad reviews, that probably lots of smoker-politicians try to keep their smoking habit out of public view. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any New Hampshire or national politicians who are known for being smokers except for Senator Barak Obama from Illinois. Probably, there's got to be some other governors, congressman, and senators who smoke since supposedly 20% of all american adults are smokers.

At $4.50 for a pack of 20 camel filters, it's not an inexpensive habit. Used to be, cigarette makers hired well-dressed women down on Washington St, Boston, in the shopping district to pass out little freebie four-packs of cigarettes. Them days are gone forever....take a breath....it's springtime!

Gavia immer · 06-02-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLW

Who voted the people in that are making these decision that none of you care for??

That's an overlooked, and excellent, point.

Now that the Legislature has "cleared the air" for a time, Legislators can now go back and strike the smoking ban. Any establishment who wants to reopen and allow smoking should be able to. How many businesses would adopt that option?

MJM · 06-04-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLW

May I ask?? Who voted the people in that are making these decision that none of you care for??

EXCELLENT POINT!

AC2717 · 06-04-2007, 08:26 AM

when does this become effective?

Paugus Bay Resident · 06-04-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

May I ask?? Who voted the people in that are making these decision that none of you care for??

Not me

Pretty much everybody I voted for lost.

I still believe the "market" (i.e. consumers) could have ultimately made this happen. Look at Patricks. They banned smoking on there own without a law and are doing fine.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens as cigarette tax revenues decline. It's always been a great source of revenue.

Dave R · 06-04-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLW

May I ask?? Who voted the people in that are making these decision that none of you care for??

Dumb voters? That's one of the disadvantages of living in a democratic country.

Weirs guy · 06-04-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I don't smoke either but owners should make the call not the government.

Amen. I find it ironic that one day the legislature outlaws smoking in restaurants and the next declines to adopt a seat belt law. I'm personally in favor of neither (or any other law that limits personal freedoms), but I do agree that the establishments owners should make the call. If you don't like there call, try another place.

Argie's Wife · 06-04-2007, 12:05 PM

More Nanny government...

Yes, you have to wear a helmet when you're on a bicycle, but not when you're on a motorcycle....

Yes, you have make your kids ride in the back seat with proper child seats and seatbelts, but you don't have to wear a seatbelt yourself. And, you're welcome to smoke, drive, AND talk on the cell phone all you want....

Yes, you will be at fault in an accident if you don't have insurance but insurance is not manditory....

New Hampshire law even forbids you to tap your feet, nod your head, or in any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe. You also can't get drunk in cemetaries.

No, you may not smoke in restaurants - whether the owner would consent to it or not....

And before you ask, yes I voted for some of these twits but votes pass by a majority. My rep's vote did not reflect my beliefs but there's little I can do about that now...

rander7823 · 06-04-2007, 04:16 PM

Smoking causes CANCER and secondary smoking causes CANCER and no matter how hard you try you can't avoid it. I think we should be able to arrest anyone smoking in public for attempted manslaughter. If you want to smoke do it in your own home.

Gavia immer · 06-04-2007, 06:28 PM

Non-smokers shouldn't be gloating over this new law. We will still need to hold our breaths outside buildings where clots of smokers are engaged in their debilitating habit.

Shaming them out of tobacco completely isn't going to happen, though I saw a nickname suggested on the Internet referring to those groups as "Leper Colonies".

fatlazyless · 06-04-2007, 07:24 PM

NH gets over 80million/year in tobacco taxes and another 45million/year from the tobacco settlement lawsuit.NH gets about 80m/year from the dividend & interest tax. So, they cannot totally discourage smokers since the tax money has to come from somewhere.

It is interesting that the tobacco tax, not counting the lawsuit money, is greater than the real estate transfer tax. I find that hard to believe but supposedly is true. Also, 20% of NH adults are smokers.

It would be interesting to get some good accurate numbers on the money the state collects in tobacco tax. With no income and no sales tax how important is the tobacco tax and what is its' percentage of entire revenue from all state taxes?

From a smoker's point of view who is trying to quit smoking. Quitting smoking obviously is a good health move, saves you money, and takes tax money away from the state. If I were a smoker, I would quit just to take the tax money away from the state except I already quit in 1974.

Pineedles · 06-04-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rander7823

Smoking causes CANCER and secondary smoking causes CANCER and no matter how hard you try you can't avoid it. I think we should be able to arrest anyone smoking in public for attempted manslaughter. If you want to smoke do it in your own home.

I hope that you were drunk or hopped up on some drug before you posted that statement that advocates manslaughter charges to be levied against anyone smoking in public. If not, I consider you one of the most dangerous men alive! Dangerous to who, you may ask. Anyone living in this country that believes that mob mentality is wrong, and you sir are nothing but mob mentality. Take your sorry excuse for what you consider to be a right of free speech and yell fire elsewhere. Sorry, no cute avatars can express my disgust for a statement like you made.

GWC... · 06-04-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I hope that you were drunk or hopped up on some drug before you posted that statement that advocates manslaughter charges to be levied against anyone smoking in public. If not, I consider you one of the most dangerous men alive! Dangerous to who, you may ask. Anyone living in this country that believes that mob mentality is wrong, and you sir are nothing but mob mentality. Take your sorry excuse for what you consider to be a right of free speech and yell fire elsewhere. Sorry, no cute avatars can express my disgust for a statement like you made.

Me thinks you might have misinterpreted his wordage.

It could be argued that just as a car is a lethal weapon, so is a cancer causing smoke creator, such as a cigarette, cigar, or pipe.

If you cause a death with a car, it may be referenced as vehicular manslaughter.

If you cause a death with tobacco smoke, it too should be labeled as manslaughter.

Hopefully, your respiratory system is healthier than your prostrate - mine isn't.

Perhaps that is why I am able to understand the rationale of his statement.

Argie's Wife · 06-04-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rander7823

Smoking causes CANCER and secondary smoking causes CANCER and no matter how hard you try you can't avoid it. I think we should be able to arrest anyone smoking in public for attempted manslaughter. If you want to smoke do it in your own home.

If you follow your "logic" through...

The car you drive could be considered a leathal weapon. I can't tell if you can use it correctly or not, so let's assume you're out to kill me and arrest you now. Besides, the CO3 is certainly an issue and spews cancer-causing compounds, so that's even a better reason. Bonus!

The red meat you served at your last bbq contained carcinogens from the grilling of it... That could be considered attempted manslaughter. Let's arrest you for that, too...

The cordless phone you use could cause brain cancer, so that means you've got it in for your whole family. You should most certainly be in jail for that.

The dog food you're feeding Fido or the cat food you just put out for Fluffy might have harmful chemicals in it - let's get Animal Control to investigate and arrest you now because you might be trying to harm your animals...

Floride in water is linked to cancer. You mean you don't buy your family's drinking water? Looks like it's the slammer for you, buddy! You're certainly trying to kill 'em there - no doubt about it...

Now... those are just a few "silly" examples, but applied to the logic you used just now of "cigarette smoke = cancer = murder" well... you can apply to MANY other avenues of life where if someone used a widdle bit of common sense, then it's really not an issue. (Albeit the smoker takes his/her smoking elsewhere or the non-smoker goes elsewhere...)

I feel badly for you, seriously, if you're going through life thinking you catch cancer from one encounter with second hand smoke when there's so many other things that are really worse and bigger issues like people forgetting to wash their hands after they use the bathroom...

rander7823 · 06-05-2007, 08:10 AM

Thanks AW........I just like seeing you folks get worked up....it's very entertaining.

SAMIAM · 06-05-2007, 08:18 AM

"You folks".....meaning those who are not as smart as Rander............sounds like the moonbats are out!

Pineedles · 06-05-2007, 09:55 AM

Well then GWC, I guess you and Rander need to stay inside more, or push for the arrest of everyone who drives a car, turns on an electric light, or even starts a campfire. Because all these activities create pollution and are harmful to the respiratory system when inhaled. By the way, what are you two doing at home? The G8 summit is starting and I would have expected you'd be there protesting with all the other anarchists.

rander7823 · 06-05-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"You folks".....meaning those who are not as smart as Rander............sounds like the moonbats are out!

I have never claimed to be smarter than anyone.....I just like to have a good debate. I could have just as easily agreed with everyone, but then that would have been boring

Argie's Wife · 06-05-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"You folks".....meaning those who are not as smart as Rander............sounds like the moonbats are out!

LOL! In full force, my friend... keep your hair covered!

GWC... · 06-05-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

By the way, what are you two doing at home? The G8 summit is starting and I would have expected you'd be there protesting with all the other anarchists.

The Internet is world-wide, or have you forgotten?

Pineedles · 06-05-2007, 01:57 PM

Ok Rander, I accept that your not looney and you just wanted a debate. Why say something as outlandish as you did? I used to joke with my smoking friends that soon they'll be able to shoot us on site but gov't is on its way to making alot more than smoking illegal. How about our own state legislators bringing up a bill to ban trans fat? It starts with something that supposedly is bad for you and gov't gets on board and bans it. As for smoking, the gov't in certain states have made it illegal to smoke in your car when children are present. Granted it is a confined area and children need to be protected from abusive adults/parents, but where does it go from there? Will gov't be allowed into private homes of smokers who have children and make arrests? It won't stop at smokers though, they'll be coming into your home to make sure you don't put too much sugar in your coffee, or will tell you your hamburger is to rare.

Too many people want the gov't to protect them in lieu of them exercizing common sense and common courtesy. I don't have a lot of hope for this country if we are turned into a nation of sniveling cowards who run to mommy or the obscure law to protect them.

How's that for a start to the debate?

Mee-n-Mac · 06-05-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

{snip} Too many people want the gov't to protect them in lieu of them exercizing common sense and common courtesy. I don't have a lot of hope for this country if we are turned into a nation of sniveling cowards who run to mommy or the obscure law to protect them.

How's that for a start to the debate?

A good start though perhaps not as good as 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the lake. Do you suppose lawyers would kill off milfoil ?

SIKSUKR · 06-06-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

A good start though perhaps not as good as 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the lake. Do you suppose lawyers would kill off milfoil ?

I don't know m&m.I can see the "Save the Milfoil" foundation being set-up as I write this."Those are living things that you propose to irradicate", will be the cry.

rander7823 · 06-06-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

A good start though perhaps not as good as 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the lake. Do you suppose lawyers would kill off milfoil ?

Now if spaced properly the lawyers may also help reduce wakes

rander7823 · 06-06-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

If you follow your "logic" through...

The car you drive could be considered a leathal weapon. I can't tell if you can use it correctly or not, so let's assume you're out to kill me and arrest you now. Besides, the CO3 is certainly an issue and spews cancer-causing compounds, so that's even a better reason. Bonus!

The red meat you served at your last bbq contained carcinogens from the grilling of it... That could be considered attempted manslaughter. Let's arrest you for that, too...

The cordless phone you use could cause brain cancer, so that means you've got it in for your whole family. You should most certainly be in jail for that.

The dog food you're feeding Fido or the cat food you just put out for Fluffy might have harmful chemicals in it - let's get Animal Control to investigate and arrest you now because you might be trying to harm your animals...

Floride in water is linked to cancer. You mean you don't buy your family's drinking water? Looks like it's the slammer for you, buddy! You're certainly trying to kill 'em there - no doubt about it...

Now... those are just a few "silly" examples, but applied to the logic you used just now of "cigarette smoke = cancer = murder" well... you can apply to MANY other avenues of life where if someone used a widdle bit of common sense, then it's really not an issue. (Albeit the smoker takes his/her smoking elsewhere or the non-smoker goes elsewhere...)

I feel badly for you, seriously, if you're going through life thinking you catch cancer from one encounter with second hand smoke when there's so many other things that are really worse and bigger issues like people forgetting to wash their hands after they use the bathroom...

The first point about CO2 is the first time I had ever heard that as a counterpoint to this and has great merit. It also works with grilling and campfires.
The rest still are all self inflicted wounds and that is my biggest pet peeve about smoking is that it can be inflicted by others upon you....that's all

rander7823 · 06-06-2007, 09:43 AM

Back in prep school and college we were forced to take "Debate Classes" and the teachers used to always give me the wacky arguments to defend because everyone else took the easy way and defended the more commonly accepted answers. The part that gets lost over the Internet is the body language in these types of discussions. I am rolling my eyes when I say these things.

That trans fat thing is wrong because it is self-inflicted. If I want to eat and McD's then that is my prerogative, but it doesn't cause any harm to others unless I sit on them. And I should pay for my own medical coverage.

For the debate part unfortunately we have already gotten to that point.....substitute lawyers for Mommy... we sue at the drop of a hat.....Did you see the article about the guy suing the prison guards for not stopping his suicide attempt that he didn't succeed at because they stopped it......now that's crazy

Weirs guy · 06-06-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

A good start though perhaps not as good as 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the lake. Do you suppose lawyers would kill off milfoil ?

If we say yes can we start today?

Pineedles · 06-06-2007, 11:56 AM

I will not rehash my position on the smoking ban. It has been clearly stated in another thread on this Forum. My closing is to paraphrase Newt Gingrich: "In New Hampshire, it's Live Free or Die -- not Live Free or Whine."

I love that. Did he really say that?

Weirs guy · 06-06-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I love that. Did he really say that?

If he did you know he was lying.

rander7823 · 06-06-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodsk8s

... spelling, punctuation, syntax and proofreading, I'd say your "debate" defense might have some merit! You allude to sarcasm in your responses (eye rolling). You have foisted your rhetoric on this subject numerous times; and, frankly, I don't believe for a minute that your posts are strictly forensic.

What I do find fascinating, however, is the common theme of "Blame Someone Else". It started with smokers. Now, your teachers are responsible for how you argue your position.

I will not rehash my position on the smoking ban. It has been clearly stated in another thread on this Forum. My closing is to paraphrase Newt Gingrich: "In New Hampshire, it's Live Free or Die -- not Live Free or Whine."

Fixed the two spelling mistakes. If you are referring to the last sentence about the prison guards being sued it was the best way to describe that ridiculos situtation
95% forensic 5% real. When I was 11 I watched then pump black stuff out of my grandfathers lungs.....he died shortly after that...he was a smoker so it is probably a little slanted
As far as blame goes I don't blame my teachers, but that was how I was taught and how I choose to apply that lesson is my responsibility.
Lastly, as far as taking responsibility for one’s actions I would be willing to make a risky decision and do away with Social Security and if I am broke in my old age the only people that should have to take care of me would be my family.
I also vow not to post on this topic anymore
That should make a few people happy.

Pineedles · 06-06-2007, 05:50 PM

Rander you sound very young and confused. I am sorry I was so hard on you. I believe that if you state your true feelings, and believes on this forum you will be treated with respect. I've said in past posts to just say what you believe in and take take that position. If you were exposed to something as horrific as seeing some sort of pump out of your grandfather's lungs, and I can't imagine how, or more importantly why, then I can understand your fear of lung cancer. Just be honest with all of us and we'll respect your opinions as well as respond with our agreement or not, but we will respect you.

Argie's Wife · 06-06-2007, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rander7823

Back in prep school and college we were forced to take "Debate Classes" and the teachers used to always give me the wacky arguments to defend because everyone else took the easy way and defended the more commonly accepted answers. The part that gets lost over the Internet is the body language in these types of discussions. I am rolling my eyes when I say these things.

That trans fat thing is wrong because it is self-inflicted. If I want to eat and McD's then that is my prerogative, but it doesn't cause any harm to others unless I sit on them. And I should pay for my own medical coverage.

For the debate part unfortunately we have already gotten to that point.....substitute lawyers for Mommy... we sue at the drop of a hat.....Did you see the article about the guy suing the prison guards for not stopping his suicide attempt that he didn't succeed at because they stopped it......now that's crazy

I appreciate the fact you wish to have a juicy debate. I love a good back-and-forth point and counter-point, respectfully done, as well as anyone. There have been some I have participated in where I ended up with a different view/opinion than I had started with. All good...

But a suggestion to you, if I may.... You write about the lack of mojo that is with an internet post or electronic communication. You may find these guys rather helpful for that:

Although I find them a little tacky and clinche, they do work. (There are more available than what I have just posted - these are just for example.)

Now, I had attempted to engage with you about your first post only to have you come back with an, "Aw, just messin' wit' ya'," response. Then, you change and counterpoint. So, which is it? Do you mean what you say and stand for what you believe?

(You are welcome to take this as a "rhetorical question", seeing as you've stated you're not posting on this subject anymore.)

Are you aware that cigarette smoking used to be PRESCRIBED by physicians, as late as in the 1970's, for people to help them "calm their nerves"? Of the ten smokers I know, two of them began their habit by this very means. Now, they are hooked, in their late 60's, early 70's, and can't afford to smoke but are addicted, of course, and really are struggling to quit... Now what's the nanny law going to do to them? (No easy answers there, you must admit.)

Argie's Wife · 06-06-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWC...

The Internet is world-wide, or have you forgotten?

I gotta know - WHERE did you find that graphic? I LOVE IT! LOL!

GWC... · 06-06-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

I gotta know - WHERE did you find that graphic? I LOVE IT! LOL!

Since you asked...

Search request:
cartoon of al gore and internet

Search results:
Al Gore Inventor of the Internet - Funny Picture - Gore Joke

Resulting URL of choice:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...reinternet.htm

fatlazyless · 06-07-2007, 01:45 PM

Someone, please correct me on this, the 'live free or die, death is not the worst of evils' phrase was said by NH Revolutionary War General John Stark in 1809 on the anniversary of the Revolutionary War battle of Bennington Vermont. As a pipe smoker, cancer of the mouth kept Stark from making the trip from New Hampshire to Vermont, so he probably already had his impending death on his mind and was thinking how things could not be worse. When faced with an uncurable problem, he had found his own way to rationalize it and in responding to the battle git-together with his war buddies, sent the message; Sorry guys, am too sick to travel even if it is just to Vermont, and oh yeah, fellow soldiers, live free or die, death is not the worst of evils!

So, NH's motto was thought up while he was suffering the cancerous effects of smoking. Chalk one up for smoking!

My point is that General John Stark was sick and dying and he knew it, and thought up this reply knowing he's soon to be dead.

Pineedles · 06-07-2007, 07:33 PM

FLL,
Take a situation, assume a thought process by someone else, come to a conclusion as to their intent, and prove a hypothesis. Not even close to the scientific method. GIGO!

SIKSUKR · 06-08-2007, 06:31 AM

I thought General Stark was crossing the Merrimack and was stopped by British troops looking to impose speed limits when he announced "live free or die".

fatlazyless · 06-08-2007, 06:43 AM

Hey Pineneedles, yeah thanks for the compliments, am I a smartie or what? Now I know what that ringing sound was when I wrote that....it was the BS alarm.

Wikipedia says Gen John Stark lived from 1728 -1822, about 94 years. Not too bad for back when the average life span was probably 44 or so. Must have had that Vermont fighting spirit. You know, I never have heard of the Vermont state motto?

Pineedles · 06-08-2007, 06:59 AM

Freedom and Unity. Quite a dichotomy huh? No wonder they are as close to a socialist state as one can be in the US.

geoffpp · 06-08-2007, 04:32 PM

This is a great debate, and while I was joining the forums for other purposes, I couldn't help but jump in!

I absolutely believe that often parents/governments overprotect their children/citizens, and this actually has a negative effect on long term health and safety. Mandating protection is not as affective as teaching precaution and common sense.

A big example, for me. If I were in power (and one day I will be

) before I enacted a law requiring helmets and seatbelts, I would first make driving license applicants take a much, much tougher test. Hopefully, the latter would make the former unnecessary. It would be amusing if it weren't tragic that the USA is by far the easiest of the developed nations in which to get a driving license, and yet also has the worst statistics, proportionally, for casualties on the road, particularly among younger drivers.

But back to topic. I'm an ex-smoker who is comfortable around smoke and smokers, and I'm not a huge proponent of the law. But personally I can understand that people want equal access to public environments that doesn't force them to tolerate a substance known to hazardous to their health.

Now before I get jumped on, I fully realize that there are many things that are hazardous to our health in our world. I agree that passing a law against grilling meat or spooning lard onto my bread would be ridiculous. But there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. That's what governments are for, without government regulation we would descend into anarchy, by definition.

While I love our motto 'live free or die', it's a bit misleading, and is often reiterated when the government enacts a law people disagree with. But I laughed out loud when I saw Pineedles seemingly promotes the ideals of this motto, while at the same time expecting that user Render would be at:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

The G8 summit…protesting with all the other anarchists.

Not only was it a good crack, but I don't think even Pineedles saw the irony that that Rander, who wants more government control, should be portrayed as an “anarchist” by Pineedles, who wants less!

But there has to be a line somewhere, and it’s not a straight line. What you do in your own home should be different from what you do in public. I wonder if user’s Goodsk8s, Pineedles and Argie’s Wife agree with me that we should legalize all drugs and intimate relationships. Personally, I think what people do in their own homes is their own business. I’m a little worried that legalizing crack will lead to addicts in the throes of withdrawal robbing my house for drug money, but honestly, that’s a price and a risk I am willing to pay for my freedom.

But in public we have to be restricted in our behavior in lots of ways. Should I be allowed to listen to hard-core gangsta rap music in a public place at volumes that could cause ear damage? Hardly. Parade naked? Maybe. What about exercising my conjugal rights with my wife on the steps of town hall?

Should we rescind laws requiring restaurant workers to wash their hands after using the bathroom? What about the laws regarding how kitchens and farms are allowed to store and transport cooked and uncooked meat, poultry and Diary products? And are we willing to accept the possible E. Coli and Salmonella outbreaks as the price of Freedom? Perhaps not.

So the question is not whether to “live free or die”, but rather where do we draw the line?

And now I’m really going to annoy some people.

I don’t mean to harp on Pineedles, I really don’t. I actually agree with 90% of what s/he says. But this was a wrong, I thought:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Too many people want the gov't to protect them in lieu of them exercizing common sense and common courtesy

-Firstly, Rander isn’t asking for protection from the government in lieu of himself using “common sense.” He wants the gov. to protect him from other peoples use of thier common sense, over which he has no control.
-Secondly, as far as I can tell and remember from being a smoker, common courtesy would be to not smoke around people who are eating, especially indoors in places like restaurants. That would be common courtesy, but yet it’s rarely enacted.
-Thirdly, given the well known health effects of cigarettes, while smokers are exercising thier personal freedoms it is arguable whether they are at all exercising common sense.

Rander and other proponents of this law don't want gov. intervention so they don't have to worry about excersizing thier own common sense and common courtesy, they want potection from others who are failing to use thiers.

That's my final point. I’d turn Pineedles quote around. As I see it, the government is often forced to enact laws to protect the populace from individuals who are unwilling or incapable of “exercizing common sense and common courtesy.” That is to say that it is individuals who (ab)use their freedoms to the point that it has a negative effect on the lives of others will force the gov. to regulate, and in the end hurt mostly themselves.

Have at it, kids, the freedom to debate is the cornerstone of democracy, and not something all peoples of the world enjoy.

Argie's Wife · 06-08-2007, 05:40 PM

Thank you for your candor and well thought out post, geoffpp...

The smoking debate is a tough one. Taxes are placed on tobacco at the state level to raise more money. The state depends on that revenue. Yet, laws are enacted to limit where people can smoke and now there's even more laws... The state has a love/hate relationship with it.

Although I don't believe smoking should be allowed on school, hospital, or civic property - places where people HAVE to go, I don't agree that it should be banned in places where people can CHOOSE to go. If the Topsdown Tavern down the street allows smoke and you don't like smoking, then you can choose NOT to go there. Restaurant owners should be allowed to have a smoking section for those clientel who wish to smoke and it should be well ventilated enough to make it pleasant for the non-smokers, as well. The choice should be there for folks - whether it's the business owner OR the client. I resent a government that removes those rights.

On a more personal level, I am also an ex-smoker and have severe asthma. I try to keep away from asthma triggers - smoking can be one, but pet dander, dust, very cold air - many things - can trigger an attack. I do not like being around cigarette smoke at all for that reason, although I enjoy the smell of clove cigarettes, cigars, and pipes - I still avoid them due to the smoke. However, I am aware there is a percentage of the general population who smokes. They choose to do so and some may be very addicted to it - I sympathize with those who are trying to quit and are struggling to do so.

The point is, in a "politically correct" world where we're so busy embracing everyone's ethnic background, beliefs, sexuality, and other diversities, why is it that the smokers are becoming our "red-headed step children"? They should have some rights - other than just to smoke in their own home and car.

idigtractors · 06-09-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffpp

This is a great debate, and while I was joining the forums for other purposes, I couldn't help but jump in!

I absolutely believe that often parents/governments overprotect their children/citizens, and this actually has a negative effect on long term health and safety. Mandating protection is not as affective as teaching precaution and common sense.

A big example, for me. If I were in power (and one day I will be

) before I enacted a law requiring helmets and seatbelts, I would first make driving license applicants take a much, much tougher test. Hopefully, the latter would make the former unnecessary. It would be amusing if it weren't tragic that the USA is by far the easiest of the developed nations in which to get a driving license, and yet also has the worst statistics, proportionally, for casualties on the road, particularly among younger drivers.

But back to topic. I'm an ex-smoker who is comfortable around smoke and smokers, and I'm not a huge proponent of the law. But personally I can understand that people want equal access to public environments that doesn't force them to tolerate a substance known to hazardous to their health.

Now before I get jumped on, I fully realize that there are many things that are hazardous to our health in our world. I agree that passing a law against grilling meat or spooning lard onto my bread would be ridiculous. But there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. That's what governments are for, without government regulation we would descend into anarchy, by definition.

While I love our motto 'live free or die', it's a bit misleading, and is often reiterated when the government enacts a law people disagree with. But I laughed out loud when I saw Pineedles seemingly promotes the ideals of this motto, while at the same time expecting that user Render would be at: Not only was it a good crack, but I don't think even Pineedles saw the irony that that Rander, who wants more government control, should be portrayed as an “anarchist” by Pineedles, who wants less!

But there has to be a line somewhere, and it’s not a straight line. What you do in your own home should be different from what you do in public. I wonder if user’s Goodsk8s, Pineedles and Argie’s Wife agree with me that we should legalize all drugs and intimate relationships. Personally, I think what people do in their own homes is their own business. I’m a little worried that legalizing crack will lead to addicts in the throes of withdrawal robbing my house for drug money, but honestly, that’s a price and a risk I am willing to pay for my freedom.

But in public we have to be restricted in our behavior in lots of ways. Should I be allowed to listen to hard-core gangsta rap music in a public place at volumes that could cause ear damage? Hardly. Parade naked? Maybe. What about exercising my conjugal rights with my wife on the steps of town hall?

Should we rescind laws requiring restaurant workers to wash their hands after using the bathroom? What about the laws regarding how kitchens and farms are allowed to store and transport cooked and uncooked meat, poultry and Diary products? And are we willing to accept the possible E. Coli and Salmonella outbreaks as the price of Freedom? Perhaps not.

So the question is not whether to “live free or die”, but rather where do we draw the line?

And now I’m really going to annoy some people.

I don’t mean to harp on Pineedles, I really don’t. I actually agree with 90% of what s/he says. But this was a wrong, I thought:
-Firstly, Rander isn’t asking for protection from the government in lieu of himself using “common sense.” He wants the gov. to protect him from other peoples use of thier common sense, over which he has no control.
-Secondly, as far as I can tell and remember from being a smoker, common courtesy would be to not smoke around people who are eating, especially indoors in places like restaurants. That would be common courtesy, but yet it’s rarely enacted.
-Thirdly, given the well known health effects of cigarettes, while smokers are exercising thier personal freedoms it is arguable whether they are at all exercising common sense.

Rander and other proponents of this law don't want gov. intervention so they don't have to worry about excersizing thier own common sense and common courtesy, they want potection from others who are failing to use thiers.

That's my final point. I’d turn Pineedles quote around. As I see it, the government is often forced to enact laws to protect the populace from individuals who are unwilling or incapable of “exercizing common sense and common courtesy.” That is to say that it is individuals who (ab)use their freedoms to the point that it has a negative effect on the lives of others will force the gov. to regulate, and in the end hurt mostly themselves.

Have at it, kids, the freedom to debate is the cornerstone of democracy, and not something all peoples of the world enjoy.

I think I'll hav ta wait for a rainy day to read the above book on smoking.

dan · 06-09-2007, 02:08 PM

And if you don't read it you're missing a great post.

Gavia immer · 06-09-2007, 04:45 PM

And a Great First Post!

I'd like to see the same quality of consideration applied to all the other issues.

Erosion, McMansions, fertilizer, motorcycles, taxation and signs in General Discussions, and enforcement, speed, noise, and inconsiderate behavior in the Boating forum.

"Welcome in".

jeffk · 06-09-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffpp

Now before I get jumped on, I fully realize that there are many things that are hazardous to our health in our world. I agree that passing a law against grilling meat or spooning lard onto my bread would be ridiculous. But there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere.

...

Personally, I think what people do in their own homes is their own business. I’m a little worried that legalizing crack will lead to addicts in the throes of withdrawal robbing my house for drug money, but honestly, that’s a price and a risk I am willing to pay for my freedom.

I believe there are some reasonably sharp edges that can be drawn. First, is something done on public or private property? Second, does what I do clearly affect someone else beyond their ability to reasonably mitigate the impact of my actions.

In the first case, I believe that private property rights are one of the backbones of our society and laws should do very little to encroach on use of your own property. The privacy is not absolute obviously. If someone murders someone on their own property should they be immune from prosecution? Of course not. But much more should be accepted on private property vs public property. If a privately owned restaurant, where not one is required to eat, wants to allow cigarette smoking, it should be clearly posted that smoking is allowed. Those who are concerned need not eat there. The business effects will either support such a policy or not and the restaurant will thrive or go out of business. People who want to work there have the same choice. Go work at a smoke free restaurant if you are concerned about the effects of smoking. All this is completely aside from the actual negative health impacts of smoking which is a habit I personally abhor. Public buildings on the other hand are "owned" by the public and often require the public to enter. There can be no mitigation of the impact of smoking on those who must enter these buildings.

In the second case of impact on others, most smokers these days are pushed into smoking areas, often outside, that are well removed from the general public. It is fairly easy to avoid these areas so I find it difficult to justify bans based on impact on others. You can try to argue that smoking is bad for the person doing it but this is part of the sharp line I draw. You are allowed to risk yourself. What is more private than your own person?

This gets into the drug conundrum that you brought up. I think drugs are incredibly SELF destructive. However if it is only the self at risk, I would prefer that we be allowed to use drugs without government interference. However, I also believe that if you are self destructive, the results are also your own problem. That is, if you drug yourself until you are lying in the gutter, then there you should lie. It should not be required of government to pick you up. Hopefully you have family or friends that are concerned about you. If a charitable organization wants to help you, great. I might even choose to help you myself but it's not a government problem. The problem with my approach is that its pretty harsh and most people don't have the fortitude to enforce it. So government cranks out a lot of money to take care of people with self inflicted destructive habits. If I am required (against my better judgement) to fund the "rehabilitation" effort than I feel justified in the laws that make the self destructive behavior illegal. It's unfortunately a lose/lose solution since neither the laws or the rehabilitation works very well.

In a very real sense you could easily describe cigarettes as a drug with an incredible lethal effect. I would bet that the number of deaths from cigarettes far outweighs the deaths from use of other "drugs". My way to handle this would probably be, " Well yes, you are dying from lung cancer. What did you expect? Please go home and have someone call the coroner when it's over." Since society has decided that they are going to "take care" of smoking's victims and we all have to foot the bill, maybe it's time to outlaw cigarettes so we can all stop paying for the damage done.

ApS · 06-10-2007, 04:11 AM

No mention of second-hand smoke? Somebody's never been to dinner within fifty feet of the General Wolfe Tavern!

Quote: