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.
Do you know what road rage is called?
Intermittant Explosive Disorder.
Yes, it CAN be a mental problem. My daughter has a form of it called Intermittant Explosive Hysteria. Her father himself has Intermittant Explosive
Disorder. And she was not raised with or by him, so I am guessing that there is a genetic link to this.
It has been a long time since people with mental disabilities were locked up for their own good, or for the safty of others.. Honestly, have you
thought about all the psychopaths that must be out there? Or those with delusional schitzophrenia?
Thank you for equating my 9 year old daughter with dangerous criminals. Thank you for equating some people with mental disorders with criminals..
Considering that there could be a genetic link to IED and IHD, and considering that there has also been found to be genetic component to addiction,
and addictive behaviors, Well, if we are going to be locking people up for having mental disorders, I guess we should be permanently sterilizing
people that have the genetic markers for addictive behaviours.
Why not go a step further, because we are looking out for the health and welfare of society as a whole, and permanently sterlize anyone with genetic
markers for poor health, and certain diseases..
We could knock Hemophilia, certain kinds of cancer, cyctic Fibrosis, and how many other diseases out in one generation.
You know, obesity is also linked with a genetic component in some cases, we could sterilize those carriers of that genetic code, and HEY!! How about
locking up those people with a body mass index over X amount?
Think that I may be going too far? Well, what do you think being dictated what you cannot do in your own personal property is?
I smoke, and I am a considerate smoker. When I was carless, waiting for a bus, I chose to stand at least 10 feet downwind from the bus kiosk in the
rain to enjoy my smoke, only to have someone from the kiosk come to me telling me that my smoke was bothering him.
I told him the stink of the alchohol on his breath, and general foul body oder was bothering me, but then I didn't get in his face to tell him
The fact is, IF the government was so concerned about second hand smoke, they would ban the sale of cigarettes, and make them available by
perscription only to those who are currently addicted. Once we all died off, that would be the end of it.
The fact is, I live in a row home. I have to put up with VERY strong curry cooking from the neighbors on the left, hypochondriacs that bleach
everything down once a day neighbors on the right, annoying loud music from the neighbors across the street.. and IF I lived in that city, I could not
go on my back porch to have a smoke. Which is where I go, trying to be a somewhat responsible parent.
No smoking at a restaraunt, fine, I can deal with that. No smoking in the park.. Not a problem, no smoking within 20 feet of a door or intake, I
understand, but no smoking in and on my own personal property?
You can say, I am an alchoholic, a crack addict, a meth or herion user, but nicotine addiction is just as bad.
A former crack addict said quiting the pipe was much easier than quitting the stick.
How about that?
I am not trying to harm you. I am not trying to bother you. But I don't think I should be told what I can do in and on my own private property. I
think that is the point that many posters are trying to make. Stand alone, single family dwellings are the only place you can smoke? And what if you
happen to not live in one?
And the fact that this went through without public vote truely bothers me.
Freedoms are NOT to be sacrificed for security, is what I believe Ben Franklin was saying.
What do you think this is?