Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
NO SMOKING IN A BAR!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH....

That would be over the line in my opinion as it should be the owners decision as to whether or not smoking should be allowed in bars. How many "I only smoke when I drink" people are going to like this one haha.




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Let me clarify...

I have absolutely no problem with a private business determining its own rules regarding smoking.

If a bar owner wants a smoke free bar, I support them in that decision - I just won't be a patron.

I disagree with the government telling private businesses how to run their operations in this regard. If non-smokers don't like being in a smoke-filled bar, they ought to patronize another business instead. That's my kind of country, one where smokers and non-smokers alike have places they can patronize.

They banned smoking in bars where I live, and as a result I never have pints in bars anymore. Simple, they banned smoking and lost my business. If it was their choice, I wouldn't feel bad, but in my case it was the decision of the state.

Unfair, if you ask me.

Also, it's INCREDIBLY unfair that I am prohibited from operating a bar or restaurant for smokers.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I definitely agree with you, Wyrde. A privately-owned business should make their own policies as regards whether people can smoke. Does this ban cover privately-owned businesses? Does anyone know?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
the argument that city govts will use is that while a bar is privatly owned it is a "public" place. my idea of a solution...open a bar and sell "memberships" at the door for a buck, then its a private club and they can go whine all they want.

hehe id love to owna club, id call it "Baby Seals" the shock factor alone would do all my advertising for me. "where you going tonight?" "oh im going to club baby seals"

bad taste i know but shock, like sex, does sell



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
You know, if this spreads to the entire nation, we're going to have a repeat of the Prohibition of the 20's and 30's.

They can make all the laws they want, but if it's really as addictive as some of you people make it out to be, it's not going to work.

Hey, I bet if we outlawed Crack people would stop doing that too!



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
They're not outlawing smoking. I don't think there will be a Prohibition resurgence. They're just regulating WHERE you can smoke. There are many things you can't do anywhere you please that aren't illegal:

Going to the bathroom
Having sex
Exposing one's self
Drinking alcohol
Discharging firearms
Profanity
Loud music...
Fireworks

There isn't any prohibition (like there was with alcohol in the 20s) on those behaviors. It's not like ownership of cigarettes is a crime or anything.
Not yet.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
That's right.

I'm a criminal, or i should say, i will be when this hits my town. If they take cigarretes away, then i want them to take BOOZE away also. Those crosses that line Rte 6 and Rte 128 in Cape Cod were not caused by a smoking driver. They were caused by drunk-drivers.

Right now i wish i had a smiley that made an Italian gesture.


I think you know what i mean.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I know a "few" people that have died from lung cancer and never smoked.

and no they did not work around smoke either....but they all did LIVE in the City....

And i'd put $100 bucks' down that the people that instigated this LAW drive
big ass cars or SUV's that polute my air spcae when i walk down the street....
with realy realy bad smoke


Come on, Tobaco got'a be better then high octain gas...anyway that's my view.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
You non smokers who hate smokers are ridiclous(my opionion, my right.) If me smoking affects you so much then stay the hell away from me. If you complain I will blow smoke in your face, then probebly get a law suit from your mommy that i "killed" your lungs, and eventually lead my city to outlaw smoking because some people are too self concerned to take in some smoke, but in reality their so called clean air is in fact dirty
So unless you have a Illness that roots from second hand smoke, simply don't make this into a civil war, just leave it alone, go away, or maybe if you see somebody smoking and it makes you uncomfortable please tell them, don't be a *@#!!$. Even if city streets, public spaces, and cops outlaw smoking, guess what? I'll comply to those rules but i will smoke non the less, because I like it. Next time i see one of you smoker haters I promise to blow smoke in your face. Have a good day.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Going to the bathroom
Having sex
Exposing one's self
Drinking alcohol
Discharging firearms
Profanity
Loud music...
Fireworks

There isn't any prohibition (like there was with alcohol in the 20s) on those behaviors.


there are laws regulating every single one of those behaviors. Yes some cities even still have laws against vulgar language in the presence of children. But otherwise, most states do not allow fireworks outside of the season. Many places have ordinances against public drunkeness. Almost everyone has laws about defecating, urinating in public. Go outside and fire your sidearm in the middle of a corwded street or public place, and see how quick you land in jail. Exposing ones self in public is a lewd and lacivious act, punishable by jail time. Many cities are also now issuing fines for playing over loud music.

Frankly, good riddance. All of those issues are either a safety or health hazard, even extremely loud music.

Frankly, I would love to have alcohol banned as well, and many of the things tha have had comparisons made to them. Cars are being worked on now to be less harmful to the environment.

Fact is if this became law in the US, the majority of you complainers would follow it. You would get tired of the legal fees and fines for trying to fight it. Many of you would even quit due to the inconvinience.

Society is waking up to allowing self-destructive individuals the right to do whatever they wish. I am happy to hear that this kind of behavior is being bred out of the human race, slowly at the moment, but inevitable. And for that I am happy. If anyone decides to start violence over the right to self-destructive habbits btw, you would completely lose the support of most of the public, leaving you at the mercy of merciless government agents


Anyways, thankfully I have never had the inconvinience of someone smoking crack next to me, for if I saw such a thing I would have that person on the ground, and the police good and ready on the way.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakeolsen2219
How will you like it when people decide that drinking should not be aloud in bars. Sounds ridiculous, huh?


Already happened. It was called the proabibtion era. Alochol was illegal, and it created a giantic underground much worse than the underground we have for drugs today. Many mafias were set up to bring in different types of alochol, and they set up many underground bars with some even in the basements in houses.

I saw an interesting program about a house that use to be used during the proabition era on HGTV. I forget which show it was.

Anyhow it didn't last very long, since there were too many people protesting. There were too many people breaking the new law. Just think if proabition happened again, the police would have to arrest over half of the people who live in the US from those who drink heavy to those who like a drink every now and then. They aren't going to stop just because some government noob told them to.

Neither are smokers going to stop smoking in public just because some government noobs thought it was such a great idea. You will just have more and more people finding different hiding places to smoke outside from alleys to various nitches in doorways. There may be even people hinding in or behind shrubs just to get a smoke in.

What non-smokers don't realize is that it is highly addictive. When that person tries to quit especially when they are not ready, it can make that person very dangerous around others. I have seen the effect and been around smokers when they can't smoke. My husband is living proof. I rather have him smoke, happy, stress free than to have him yelling at me and the kids over every little thing that irritates him. That includes everything I do or don't do. Just because he can't light up.

You are talking about a higher instances of road rage, general anger, bar brawls, and agressive behaviour towards those just walking by or working near the smoker who can't light up and is use to chain smoking. Sorry, I don't want to be a part of that world.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
To all of you who would say all doctors would tell their patients to quite smoking, I personally know of someone who was told by his doctor that it would be best for him to continue smoking.

Yep, you heard me correctly. It would be deteremental to his health to quite smoking.

That person is my dad, been smoking for well over 40 years probablly by now. He also has high blood pressure. For him to quite smoking, his blood pressure would go up into very dangerous levels even with his medication.

The doctor told him not to stop.

For all of you who say hey this is a great idea that you can only smoke at home, you would be putting my dad at risk and all others like him. Yes there are expections to every rule. How many more are like my dad? I don't know. You put all of them at risk just because you can not accept their right to smoke outside and in their own car.

Also, one more thing.... just remember that making a smoker have to quite or not smoke while driving will increse road rage. With not being able to smoke in your vechicle, just be extra careful around the big rigs. Many of them smoke, get the short end of the stick from their companies, have to stay away from their families weeks on end, and deal with four wheelers who do really stupid things around them almost causing or causing accidents. With them not being able to smoke, you just put extra stress and pressure on them. You think truckers were bad before?
Watch out..... Don't get them ticked off.

You know what I mean. Doing 80 to pass, getting back in your lane and slowing down to 55 or lower. Squeezing in front of them when you really don't have the room to do so, and especially slowing down suddenly after doing so. Tail gating - why do you think trucks swerve in their lane? They are looking for tailgaters to know where the cars are around them. There are other things also, but those are some of the biggest complaints.

Hint while driving: If it is snowing badly or raining and you insist on driving, you are safer behind the truck. Follow the truck from a safe distance. He is making a path through the snow for you, so your wheels have better traction. In rain rain when it is hard to see the road, you have his headlights to help you outline the road, and a big white box in front of you to show you how the road is turning especially if you are unfamilliar with the road. There was at least one instance I wish I stayed behind the truck when it was raining at night. I thought it was safer in front. Here the headlights were bothering me. Both of us wanted to go faster, and I had to creap because I could barely see the road. I really had problems with the headlights of the on coming traffic. Needless to say I wouldn't have had all those problems if I just followed the truck at a safe distance.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

What non-smokers don't realize is that it is highly addictive. When that person tries to quit especially when they are not ready, it can make that person very dangerous around others. I have seen the effect and been around smokers when they can't smoke. My husband is living proof. I rather have him smoke, happy, stress free than to have him yelling at me and the kids over every little thing that irritates him. That includes everything I do or don't do. Just because he can't light up.

You are talking about a higher instances of road rage, general anger, bar brawls, and agressive behaviour towards those just walking by or working near the smoker who can't light up and is use to chain smoking. Sorry, I don't want to be a part of that world.


Then sorry to say, but those people are a danger to society. Frankly, I think it would benefit us all to have those dangerous people behind bars, where we put the rest of our dangerous criminals. Thats the problem and the reason smoking and tobacco should be banned.

Thats the problem with the wrold and where we have gotten. Instead of focusing on rehabiltating the mind, the fools have decided it would be wiser to simply please the body with drugs. you cannot fix the mind by giving in to the flesh. In fact, its devilish. I am done with this. Thankfully I am almost certain I can look forward to more laws like these in the future, and hopefully we can better identify the dangerous dope fiends and at least make an effort to rehabilitate their mind as opposed pleasing their flesh.

I pray some lone chemist will devise a herbicide that will attack and destroy tobacco only on the genetic level, and we can spray the stuff worldwide. Thats one species that the human race is better off without. Then we man move on to alcohol, illicit drugs and so on.

Bye bye now.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Your right.
But when your smoke affects my health.
You'd better believe Im going to stand up.

I dont care if you choose to kill yourself, thast your right.
but you have no right to assist in killing me!
And when your out smoking in the park, or on the street, people have to walk through your cloud of toxic crap.
people have to endure your rudness by smoking in public.

smoke at home.
save us the cancer!

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Agit8dChop]


Of course you gonna stand up.

I'm a smoker and to be honest I wouldn't be upset for laws like that. I want to quit but so far I didn't make it. So some help I think will make the things earier for me.
But I have a problem with this thing being impossed in this way. Firstly I would say to whoever comes up with ideas of banning the smoke (not only in public places but even in private areas now) that if you want to ban smoking then start by banning the production of the cigarettes and don't tell me can't be done. But who would do that? Who wants to loose money? And I've got a problem with that. To me is just an hypocrisy and a test to see how easy can mases be manipulated and controlled.
You're telling me that smoking is the evil we are threatened from?
Are you forgeting all that crap we're being sprayed of from above? Can you tell me what are we eating, drinking and breathing? How many stories we listen about chemicals being pumped to the food products, vegetables, meat... What is the industry doing to us? What about pollution only from the use of the cars?

And the last of our problems is the cigarette? Here in Canada government banned smoking from all places. At the same time the cigarette prices went up 300 % and you're telling me that they care about our health and safety?
I'm sorry but can't buy that... Just can't. I would have if they would have banned the production but who would give up of a multi billion dollars profit?

To me is just a test, just another little "freedom" being taken away from us.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
It was voted on in a democratic manner, and then made into a law that was put into effect by a majority voe. You can not get any more Democratic than that. By telling us we should not be excercising our right to vote against a detrimental and self-destructive lifestyle, it is you all who are being dictators. Yes yes, we should definetly ban the production of cigarettes. Unfortunately China is now the largest producer, followed by USA. Any ideas?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Telos

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Your right.
But when your smoke affects my health.
You'd better believe Im going to stand up.

I dont care if you choose to kill yourself, thast your right.
but you have no right to assist in killing me!
And when your out smoking in the park, or on the street, people have to walk through your cloud of toxic crap.
people have to endure your rudness by smoking in public.

smoke at home.
save us the cancer!

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Agit8dChop]


Of course you gonna stand up.

I'm a smoker and to be honest I wouldn't be upset for laws like that. I want to quit but so far I didn't make it. So some help I think will make the things earier for me.
But I have a problem with this thing being impossed in this way. Firstly I would say to whoever comes up with ideas of banning the smoke (not only in public places but even in private areas now) that if you want to ban smoking then start by banning the production of the cigarettes and don't tell me can't be done.



Fair enough,

Mayeb this local council should outlaw them in their disctrict....
although that would mean having secure the broders of other states in the US..

Maybe if the cigerette companies wernt lining the politicans pockets for campaign contributions.. they wouldnt be so relaxed on allow them to continue marketing this addictive, cancer inticing drug.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Smoking should be banned throughout the entire world.

Its your right to smoke correct... because you have the phyiscal ability to put a cancerstick into your mouth, its your right.

Well, its my right to physically place my hands around your neck squeeze until u go limp too...

just because you have the CHOICE to do something, doesnt mean its your RIGHT!

smoking hurts the people AROUND YOU.
Its a DRUG, an ADDICTIVE DRUG that affects your body.


Let's ban the following then:

drinking alcohol
eating fatty foods
candy
television
skate boards
swimming pools
ladders
knives
and a long list of other things which may be dangerous not only to others but to ourselves.

sorry but I don't WANT TO LIVE IN A POLICE STATE. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
DYepes

Be careful of what you wish for. Today it is smoking. Tomorrow it will be fast food. They already started attacking some of the major fast food companies, and all in the name of health. Give enough time with enough shove without enough resistance, then all fast food restraunts will disappear. Don't think it will be just restraunts like McDonalds and Wendys. Bye, bye pizza, chineese, possibly kings, denny's, eatin park, and many others people love.

Hmmmm, now we got rid of most of the so called fast food leaving only expensive restraunts you have to sit and wait for your food. Now they can attack cooking oils that are used to fry food at home, all fats, and all junk foods. Maybe those frozen dinners aren't so good either.

Remember this is all in the name of health. Obesity is a health problem. How does it affect you, hmmmm in increased insurance and emergancy rescues. Since humanity can't regulate itself, I guess the government has to regulate it for us.

On top of that while they are regulating what we can eat, why not let them regulate how much we can eat also. Now we all have a little card that allows us to buy so much food. Then we can only buy so much of each type of food, with vegetables being allotted the most. I hope you like vegetables.

On top of this, of course they will have to do away with caffeen. Too much gets a person jettery and nervous. Then they have problems sleeping at night. Can't have this now can we? No one is allowed any coffee or any type of pop any longer. Sorry, now parties have to be done with vegetables, vegetable dip, and juice. Oooops, the dip is out since it is fat. Raw vegetables then. No pizza, chips, or pop sorry.

Sorry, we can't let little Johnny or Suzie have any cake or ice cream since they are fattening also. No pies, no cookies, no white bread, and hmmm what else can they eliminate. How about white flower and sugar. Those are fattening also. Stores will no longer have any snack or candy isles.

Now lets see, we got rid of ciggerattes and all bad food items. Next, we will need to work on all alcholoic drinks banned period. We will have to be smarter than they were during proabition though. Maybe if martial law was in effect....we're due for another terrorist threat again aren't we????

Now lets see, cars are a major polutant and kill many people. We need to get rid of as many cars as possible. Make people bike to work. Expand our transportation system. Make it so the car has to be full before being allowed to drive anywhere. Hmmm, I'm sure there are many more draconian measures they can take with this.

Now we need to work on improving everyone's health. Lets make everyone have to execrise everyday or every other day. We could create state sponsored gyms, and for people to go. Of course we will have an assistance program for those who can't afford to pay for it. Everyone will have to attend at least three times a week whether they want to or not, or have time or not.

Lets see, we have to help people regulate themselves, so they don't hurt themselves. Hmmmmm, skining, rollerskating, roller blading, ice skating, boxing, football are all dangerous sports and need to be banned. People can get hurt during a baseball game, so that gets put on the banned list. Horse riding is dangerous also. People have gotten killed at amusement parks, so they will need to be closed down. All those balls flying around on a golf course is dangerous. I guess mini-golf is ok though.

Of course we can't have people loafing around all day playing compter games. All games need to be banned. Of course we use the TV to brainwash people and give them our news, so that stays. The internet is highly debatable. Maybe it can stay if regulated a lot.

------------------------------------------------------------

I do believe this is a very dangerous and slippery slope we are on. Once one right and freedom is taken away, then another one will be, then another one will be. They will chip at it until we can do nothing, eat nothing, or say nothing unless they say it is ok to do so. The less rights taken away from us the better especially in this politically correct hot patato environment.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Yes it was voted on in a democratic manner, but only by the local council. We don't know how the majority of the people feel about it. How would they vote? Did any of the council even have any in put from the average joe on the streets?

Laws made by few for the masses can be dangerous, especially when the few turn a deaf ear to the masses.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
This is probably a dumb question, but why make such a big deal out of a ban on smoking. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you. Nobody's going to argue that one. So just say no to smoking and quit. Why all the self-loathing trying to destroy your body? I think people should be strong in their hearts and minds and if they are addicts, they should just face it and stop or get assistance if they can't go it alone. I honestly dont understand what the big argument is.

Please someone explain!!!





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join