It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:07 AM

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 that.
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?

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:15 AM
DYEPES - You are not God. Say it with me. You are not God.

Nothing gives you the right to exterminate all the species and substances that expose our weakness and our susceptibility to self-delusion.

Nothing is more horrific than selfish, vain men who would destroy the world just to avoid something they have a personal distaste for - it's sick and sinful in the worst possible way imaginable.

You have the right to live your life, but you do not have the right to walk around the planet and eradicate all those things that offend you. That's evidence of a serious psychosis, and if you thought about it hard enough, you would realize that if you had that right, then your fellow human beings would also have that right. And you know what offends me more than plants and poisonous animals? People like you.

What's the logical conclusion then?

That mindset is sick, sick, sick. Kill anything you can't understand, kill anything you don't like, destroy any species that doesn't serve your needs - who the Hell do you think you are?

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by jakeolsen2219

Originally posted by Diseria
But, it's illegal to grow your own tobacco plants.

[edit on 17-11-2006 by Diseria]

It ISNT illegal to grow your own tobacco. It is simply illegal to then sell that tobacco without a license. Tobacco seeds are available online for purchase, if you ever get the notion. I noticed that you said you smoke the occasional pipe? Please check out There are a lot of people there who could help you venture into the world of pipes, and away from cigarettes. I'd recommend that to any smoker, as pipe smoking preaches moderation, and appreciation, as well as patience, and a contemplative spirit.

Fantastic!!!! WOOT!!! Let me get my parcel of land and I'm growing my own!

One of the best &#*! you's to the company's I can muster!! Sweet!

Thank you.

And indeed, getting back to the native roots of pipe smoking would be wonderful. Smoking has been around for *a long* time -- however, the difference is in the quantity smoked over the period of a day, and the crap that's put in the cigarettes. Methinks I shall check out that site.
Thank you.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by jupiter869
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!!!

Because, as Mystery_Lady succintly put it, you cannot regulate people, their habits, their lifestyles. It was my choice to start to smoke, and it'll be my choice to quit. I made that choice, all by my lonesome, and *I* am the only one who can get me to quit -- no regulation will, nor any person complaining of possible bad side-/second hand effects, nor any group therapy session. My family has tried for years, but I am not ready to quit yet.

Why start a bad habit when you know that it's bad? These are my reasons, and mine alone. I have grown because of them, and will change because of them, when I am ready to.

-Because I was young and could not think that far into the future.

-Because I was depressed and full of self-loathing, because I did not think that my self was worth preserving -- yet I knew that tomorrow might provide some hope, some change. As my creative writing teacher in high skool put it: Slow, self-willed suicide. I knew the consequences and chose that route anyhow, *because* of them -- why think of self-preservation if you are not entirely sure that your self is not worth preserving? ((Was it the best choice? No. read on..))

-Because I wanted to make a choice that was completely mine, that affected only me (as, at the time, I did not smoke around anyone else), and that I could control. I started at the age of 18, and no one could punish me for my choice because I was of age. My parents complained, yelled, tried to reason, even a few bribes over the years... That first cigarette was my first step towards independence.

The list can go on, I choose to end it there. I cannot speak for other smokers, but there you have it.

I agree that people 'should' be strong of hearts and minds... but how can you truly understand strength without weakness? how can you develop strength without understanding, recognizing, and dealing with your own weakness?
It takes time and patience to make oneself realize the faults within, and to work towards correcting/changing them.

Originally posted by DYepes
Yes yes, we should definetly ban the production of cigarettes. Unfortunately China is now the largest producer, followed by USA. Any ideas?

Ban? How's about simply change the bahvior... Banning will not produce change. A change in the people themselves, however, would produce change.

If every smoker grew their own tobacco, that would be a great revolt against the corporations. (It would be beautiful!
The only way to make the corporations see you is to slight their profit.. When they are not racking in the bucks, then they have to, at the very least, stop and look around.

Otherwise, a social revolution (or, evolution!) of values/principles. Embracing knowledge, critical thinking, reason and logic & ethics. Of course, no politician or corporation would opt for this, because that would simply kill most business.

How's about Gandhi's Seven Deadly Sins for a start? Bring back morality and respect in social interaction... *which includes businesses and economic transactions!*

The only way that society can really change is.. well, only society can change itself. No outside authority figure can successfully force that change, because while you might change the behavior, you have not changed the mindset, nor corrected the reasoning.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Diseria]

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Diseria]

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Diseria]

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:38 AM
Thank goodness we can smoke freely in s.a.
wat would u do
without a cig in the morning after ur coffee? Its my lungs dammit

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:48 PM
The desire to exercise control over others is the root of all evil.

This law, like the drug laws, the drinking age, etc. will likely be almost totally ignored.

Social problems cannot be solved by legal prohibitions.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:20 PM
this ban intrudes into peoples homes.....
got that!!! not only are they saying you can't smoke in resturants, at your job, ect. ect....they are dictating what you can and can't do within the privacy of your own home!!!
to me that is just like saying you can't smoke!

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:16 PM

Originally posted by dawnstar
this ban intrudes into peoples homes.....

It does? Where does it say that?

I don't think it does.

Original Source

Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences.

I guess you mean apartments? Yeah, That's not really "your" home. They have to rent it to someone else after you leave.

Not that I agree with that, but I see the point. The smell of cigarette smoke lingers forever.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:44 PM
Ok, they made the law. Now let them try to enforce it. Bad laws are generally ignored. Most smokers I know will quit when they want to, not when society says they should. I am sure a lot of people are continuing to smoke simply because they don't like being told what to do. That's just human nature and no law is going to change it. I used to pay taxes on my smokes but when my state raised the taxes to the punitive level I went on the internet and don't pay any tax at all now.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:58 PM
it's not human nature to do something just because it's defended, that's the work of ego and believe it or not, ego can be vanished.

you guys can smoke all you want but you can't smoke in my face, when it comes to that debate the debate is none existant because the person who is doing the harm have no space for previledge.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:07 PM

Originally posted by otheym
Most smokers I know will quit when they want to, not when society says they should.


Although the town would like for everyone to quit, no one is trying to pass a law that you have to quit. No one is trying to make anyone quit. They're just saying you can't mess up the streets with stinky smoke and butts for everyone else.

I don't support meking smoking illegal at all! But I do support protecting those who don't wish to smoke from having to inhale it.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 04:00 PM
I think there's an issue that needs to be addressed here BH.

Considerate smokers don't go out of their way to annoy others with their habit. If I'm dining with non-smokers, I wait until the meal is done before smoking, and often I'll leave the area entirely in an effort to keep folks comfortable.

I don't blow smoke in the faces of others, and if I see that a small child or an elderly person is approaching me on the sidewalk, I often take my cigarette across the street to avoid an issue.

I don't do it because I have to, I do it because I feel it's the right thing to do.

I don't often throw my butts on the ground, not because I'm afraid of the fine, but because it's rude and unnecessary.

To me, what these laws are doing is an attempt at the impossible - legislating matters of taste.

You can't force people to make good decisions, not even with fines and taxes and threats of incarceration.

The only effective tool in the war against ignorance and rude behavior is education.

I don't see any reason why smokers and non-smokers can't co-exist. Some non-smokers need to get some perspective, and learn to tolerate a bad smell now and again, while some smokers need to learn to be considerate of others when lighting up in public and to be responsible with their trash.

The smell issue is not a hill to die on. I, for one, hate the smell of perfume. I don't punch out old ladies and try to pass bans on the horrid stuff - I just tolerate it and do my best to keep my distance. If someone is wearing enough perfume or cologne to kill a rhino, and they're in the elevator, I'll wait for the next one rather than complain and make a fuss.

One can't really expect to have a good track record trying to control the behaviors of other people, all you can reasonably expect to do is successfully mitigate the effect their behaviors have on you by modifying your own behaviors.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 05:05 PM
I agree 100% with everything you said, Wyrde. I was also a considerate smoker and I am a considerate non-smoker. I just don't think there are many people like you and I. I could be wrong, but I don't think we're the majority. The majority are more like, "Hey, if you don't like it, too bad."

You can't legislate 'consideration', so this is the next best thing.

I am more likely to say something about perfume than smoke.

I see (and agree with) both sides of this issue and find it very interesting.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 05:15 PM
BH, note the Einstein quote in my signature. If I ever find such an island, you are cordially invited.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by WyrdeOne]

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 09:45 PM
Better smoke here than the hereafter.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 10:01 PM
Well how about we ban electricity, or lets bean driving, or not make paper. These types of plants have far worse affects than a cigarette. It is my right as an American to smoke if I so choose. Maybe not in public buildings, but outside is my choice. If you don't like it walk away from me, I am not forsing you to sit there and breath it in, but if you do sit there we know you obviosly don't mind, or you are doing it to be an ass, and cause a scene afterwards. I will smoke, and I don't give a damn if you like it or not.
Any voter that votes to ban it, is just letting the government slowly take away your rights. It, by the way, is rare for someone to die from second hand smoke. You need to get a life. If you don't like my smoke, LEAVE!!!!.

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 01:12 AM
Yeah, it's about tolerance. The world is full of all kinds of smells and things. We have to give some room for people to be who they want to be, even if we don't agree with the habit. I believe most smokers are quite aware of the potential effects of smoking, but I believe it is their right to choose. I believe that most people are going to be just fine if they happen to pass by a smoker on the street, now and then. Heck, I smoke a cigar now and then. I'm not planning on my funeral any time soon. Some cigars are not that offensive and may even be pleasant to smell.

I think some people are too quick to slap the "villain" label on a smoker. Some of the finest, most giving people in the world were/are also smokers. And some of the worste people in the world could be the people who never picked up a cigarette in their lives. Being a smoker isn't an automatic indication of an "evil" person. And being a non-smoker isn't an automatic indication of a clean and pure person. In the same way, there are people who curse like sailors, but would give you the shirt off their backs, if you needed it. Cursing gets a bad name, but it unto itself, also is not an automatic indication of evil. And as before, those with the cleanest mouths may just be the ones who have the most to hide. They could be the ones burying bodies in the back yard.


posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by dawnstar
this ban intrudes into peoples homes.....

It does? Where does it say that?

I don't think it does.

Original Source

Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences.

I guess you mean apartments? Yeah, That's not really "your" home. They have to rent it to someone else after you leave.

Not that I agree with that, but I see the point. The smell of cigarette smoke lingers forever.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

It prohibits smoking is anywhere in the city, except for single family detached residences.
SO.. If you live in a rowhome, you cannot smoke in it.
If you live in a duplex, you cannot smoke in it.
If you live in a condo, you cannot smoke in it.
You cannot smoke in your car.
Yes, it does intrude into people homes.
Besides which, many leasers have non smoking clauses in their rental agreements. If I signed one with a landlord, than, no, I cannot smoke in my rented apartment, but if I did not, than I should be able to, and this law prevents that.
If I did have a single family detached residence, and I converted it into an apartment, I could not now smoke in my own home, because it was no longer a single family detached residence, whether or not anyone lived in the converted apartment.

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 03:13 AM
Some of the people (or should I say sheeple) in here didn't even put the effort to read what the ordinance really sais ... it's not about banning smoking from public places ... that wouldn't even be a big deal, since public places are for the public and people shouldn't be inhaling other's people smoke in a public place when don't really want to ... I'm all for that ...

What bothers me is that this law ALSO makes you a CRIMINAL when you smoke in your privat house! Your own #ing living room man! WHAT THE #, this ordinance practicallydefines you as a CRIMINAL if you smoke a sigaret in your own freaking privat living room when you're in your own freaking house!
THAT's what bothers me! It's the priciple! It tells what to do in your own freaking house when you're on your own! That's freaking Orwellian taught-police!

If they were really against smoking, wouldn't it be logic that the first step was banning tobacco-shops? Banning tobacco-commercial? Prevention campaigns in schools? Tobacco-taxation and use that tax to put into prevention?

I try to understand but it's hard when a teacher earns less than a prison guard! We've got to turn around this world of hate and educate in stead of incarcerate!

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 05:09 AM
if one can't smoke in his home (many people live in multi-family dwellings), can't smoke in his car, can't smoke on the street corner, can't smoke at work.....just where can he smoke? don't give me the crap that the laws isn't saying you can't smoke what is a legal product.......for many in this city IT IS!! just where the heck are they susposed to smoke? outside the city limits...heck they might as well move out of the city, right?? which I bet many of them do! but then, an asthmatic could be rushed to the hospital 10 times in a month because the dear neighbor across the hall from her has the tendency of slapping on so much perfume that she gags her when she passes her in the hall. and that lady could complain all she wants, won't nothing get done.... The people up stairs could party the night away, loud stereo blaring, keeping her up all night making her unfit for work the next morning...won't much get done..... and danged if that apartment complex doesn't have the right to come in whenever they want and spray a ton of insecticide into her apartment after the bugs all develope a liking to the beer cans left thrown around that apartment and all congregate in it!!!

I still say there's a few councilmen heavily investing into the real estate market, single family rentals, or single family homes. it has not so much to do with smoking as it does they don't want to see their precious investment in this reale state go plummeting into the ground. and having a few thousand or so smokers scurrying around trying to find a single family dwelling that they can smoke in just might hold up the market a little while longer!

any smokers out there want to pitch in and we'll all invest in a city...we'll call it cigville. the sign at the city line will read something like this: Welcome to cigville, We all Smoke. We smoke on the streets, we smoke in our resturants, we smoke where we want!! If you don't want to be around smoke, do not enter our city!!! For all those who do venture in, we encourage you to visit the Tobacco Museum, where you can see the Great Leaning Tower of Butts, our 200 foot memorial to tobacco....soon to be 300 ft!

Then we could all sit back and see how long it would take for the antis to show up complaining.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in