It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti Smoking Laws and the Reality of the Totalitarian Police State

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If you dig deep enough under the burning forests of liberal California - The pro-Marijuana anti-tobacco state
you may find the truth:

Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer

"A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement. The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers. The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as "borderline statistical significance." Over at the Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog, however, journalist Christopher Snowden notes "there's no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It's either significant or it's not," and the reported hazard ratio was not.........." .
See whole article here:
www.forbes.com...

But that is only a small part of the problem - Why is the government renting apartments that are so poorly constructed
that smoke will leak from one apartment to the next?

O - you saw the commercial where it showed how smoke can go out your window into the the other apartment?
- Dd you see the commercial showing how stupidity can spread from one Liberal to the next?




posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's not your lawn though, it's your landlord's. They make the rules, don't like them find somewhere else to live.

edit on 11/13/2018 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I guess banning pets at a rental is authoritarian too. Landlords should have no say in what happens on their property. Gotcha.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

That would be fair. Especially written when written into the agreement. Would even hold up in court.

What percentage of HUD recipients will clean up when they move. Especially if there is no deposit?




But banning smoking?

Sounds authoritarian.


Are we talking about banning smoking or is this about what one can do in/on a property that they are renting.

Rights end where another begins and one has the right to protect their property.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

I guess banning pets at a rental is authoritarian too. Landlords should have no say in what happens on their property. Gotcha.


%@$#ing pet Nazi's.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's not your lawn though, it's your landlord's. They make the rules, don't like them find somewhere else to live.



So public accomodation only goes so far.

I see now.

I will behave.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I was 100% against smoking bans,

UNTIL I experienced life without smoke.

NOW I fully support banned public smoking.

FORCE is sometimes good.

Very good.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Uhm, beyond cancer you have a wide array of ailments caused by regular passive exposure to smoke, including asthma, respiratory disease, ear infections in children, low birth weights, heart disease, etc.

As far as the poorly constructed comment goes, you do realize that air flow within any contiguous structure is sort of an important thing, ya? Without it you end up with carbon monoxide poisoning, radon poisoning, and nitrogen dioxide killing people while they sleep. A airtight structure is a death chamber, not a "well constructed" apartment.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Not surprised.

I don't support banning smoking outdoors anywhere. Inside, sure, in some cases.

Not wanting it on your property is understandable. Not wanting it near you is an option.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Don't like the rules? Don't live there, find somewhere else to live. It's as simple as that. It's not "nazi- like" to enforce no smoking rules. You have two choices, find somewhere else to live or quit smoking.

Try China. I understand that smoking is pretty much mandatory there for everyone.


That made me laugh!
It is close to that. Restaurants, or any public places a lot of people are smoking, even when you are eating a nice dinner, some smoke stack will come in and sit down next to you and start hacking away on smoke after smoke.

I thought I was back in the '60's again. It's like that in China today.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
But banning smoking?

Sounds authoritarian.


I would be 100% opposed to any outright ban on smoking. Hell, I'm opposed to sin taxes on tobacco products. To steal an analogy about as appropriate as some of them you've tried to use in this discussion, I'd compare smoking to masturbating. Do it in your own space, where only you and any voluntary spectators are exposed in any way to it, and you're fine. Start doing it in public or in front of the window where your neighbors are suddenly at risk and you've overstepped your rights and infringed on theirs.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: AlienView

Smoking is hell on a property. The tar and smell is difficult to remove if at all. Be it a home, or a vehicle. If you can't afford to pay rent, you shouldn't complain about how to treat the home you're allowed to live in, let alone smoke.


Now, granted as a renter, you certainly still have rights. However if you violate the terms of renting, there aren't many.


Sincerely,

-a smoker.

This. My lease stipulates that if we smoke indoors, we violate the lease terms and thus are subject to eviction, AND have to pay for the cleaning.
Good thing I quit many years ago with the help of e-cigs, though I'd never smoke indoors again. BTDT, totally understand and agree with prohibiting indoor smoking in rentals based on my own hindsight.

I used to be a smoker, a pretty heavy 2-pack-a-day one at one point, and smoked indoors in a smoking-designated apartment in the past.

We moved out and left nicotine outlines on the walls from furniture and decor. All yellow nicotine film. It was f#ing disgusting, and I felt real bad for the maintenance guys that had to clean that off.

Not only that, I'm still cleaning film off stored family items that never even saw the light of day living there. It worked it's way into the boxes, FFS.

So yeah, I don't agree with the OP. Smoking is literally dirty business, and landlords, be it private or governmental, should not have to clean that s# up. Want to smoke? Do it outside. I don't care if it's a goddamn hurricane (did that) or a blizzard in -30* temps. Your ass smokes outside if you rent. It's the least you can do to be courteous of property you do not own. When you DO own residential property, film it up all you want.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Why is it a hard thing to understand that if you don't own something you aren't allowed to make the rules? There's no stepping on rights, you're RENTING. Even more so if you're straight up getting it for free or discounted. I don't want people smoking in government housing either because when they have to spend hundreds of dollars on re-painting the housing to try to get the smell out, whose pocket is that coming out of? Certainly not the tenants. When families are more susceptible to getting sick because they're all breathing in smoke, or worse, cancer, who picks up the hospital tab?

And arguing against the health risks of smoking in 2018? Really? I dunno about you, but I've met more than enough people in my life with serious health issues due to smoking than I wish I would have. My father had Barret's esophagus which ended up with him having MAJOR surgery to remove part of his esophagus and stomach, with a 17% survival chance. My stepfather had COPD which aided in his death. I smoked for about 10 years and LOVED it, so I understand the desire for them, but denying the negative side effects of smoking seems about as bright as arguing the negative effects of getting hit in the side of the head with a baseball bat.

I'm a property engineer at a medical office building. We have no-smoking signs posted around and under the awnings entering the building yet I still have to tell people regularly they have to move to the sidewalk, out from under the awning. "But I'm outside! You have no right telling me where to smoke." then I have to go through the same speech I give every time, "I am actually in the right to tell you where to smoke when you're on this property. It is not public property and I'm the guy they hired to keep this property running properly, which includes no foul odors that can be offensive to the people who work or visit here. The cigarette smoke gathers under the awnings and even on a breezy day will linger. Please move to the sidewalk."....and then 9 times out of 10 I find their stumped out butt end on the ground next to the smoker's pole. "I can't break rules where I want so I'll litter to tell you how I feel!".

Maybe once you're (AlienView) in a position to own some assets, you'll understand why people don't want other people ruining them.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Annee

Not surprised.

I don't support banning smoking outdoors anywhere. Inside, sure, in some cases.

Not wanting it on your property is understandable. Not wanting it near you is an option.


Laws force people to respect each other's rights.

We are forced all the time.

Not being forced to share in someone else's personal vice that is impossible for them to keep in their own space. Works for me.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Annee

Not surprised.

I don't support banning smoking outdoors anywhere. Inside, sure, in some cases.

Not wanting it on your property is understandable. Not wanting it near you is an option.


Laws force people to respect each other's rights.

We are forced all the time.

Not being forced to share in someone else's personal vice that is impossible for them to keep in their own space. Works for me.


So force for you is necessary to "respect" each other.

Thanks for clarifying your worldview.

Although I don't want to ponder it for too long... 1984 keeps coming to mind...



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

" Don't like the rules? Don't live there, find somewhere else to live. It's as simple as that. It's not "nazi- like" to enforce no smoking rules. You have two choices, find somewhere else to live or quit smoking."


You are a Jew Living in Germany in the Late 1930's ? Don't Like the Rules ? Don't Live there , find somewhere else to Live . It's as Simple as that . Don't Like the Enforcement of No Jew Rules ? You have Two Choices , find a Way Out of the Country , or Die in a Concentration Camp and have your Body Burned to Ashes in an Oven . No , it IS Fascism , and You are Just OK With that ...........

edit on 13-11-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Your smoke causes cancer in other people and literally kills them. Why should someone else have to die because of your poor choices?



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yes, because sending people into a gas chamber or concentration camp to die is the same as not allowing someone to smoke inside of your property. Good analogy, no flaws in that logic at all.

edit on 11/13/2018 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Were that true, no one would ever break laws.




posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Now let us see how the smoking bans are affecting your tax dollars.

Supposedly cigarette smokers lose 10 years of life - 10 years when you will be paying social security and medical bills
for ex-smokers because you stopped them from smoking!

But THEY claim that smokers are costing the public all kinds of extra money in health care costs because of diseases
related to smoking - BUT THEY DIE 10 YEARS SOONER! - Do the math, a poor person dieing 10 years sooneer is saving
you a lot of money, right?

And the second hand smoke - They could have non-smoking and smoking apartments and require electronic air cleaners
in the apartment of all smokers as well - But THEY don't want this - They want to keep people alive, no matter how
poor or unhappy they are now that they can't even smoke!

Let's be realistic, some of these people will now drink more, take more drugs whether it be legal or not......

And how can you really be sure these people aren't still smoking?

You can't - write your congressman, especially if he or she is a new age liberal and demand SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
IN All APARTMENTS OF LOW INCOME HOUSING - Don't let your tax dollars go to waste!

"BIG BROTHER IS ALWAYS WATCHING YOU"
- "1984"


edit on 13-11-2018 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join