 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How do you feel about smoking in public places? |
| I think cigarettes should be illegal altogether. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| I think cigarettes should be banned in all places except inside one's own home. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| I think cigarettes should be banned in all places except bars and tobacco clubs |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| I think cigarettes should be banned in all places except (the previous option) and restaurants. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| I think cigarettes should be banned in offices and places where children are to be present. |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| I think cigarettes should only be banned in places where children are present. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| I don't think cigarettes should be banned from any place. |
|
50% |
[ 3 ] |
| I think businesses should be heavily taxed that want smoking. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| I think businesses should be forced to come to a ventilation standard to have smoking. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Businesses should be heavily taxed if they want smoking, but given a break if they come to ventilation standards. |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| I don't rive a rat's ass. I don't smoke, let the government do what it wants with this issue. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: Smoking in public places.... |
 |
|
A ban on smoking in indoor public places is in effect in the state of Washington, California, and many other states.
As I really enjoy being able to go to bars now when I just wouldn't go to them before because of the cigarettes, I don't personally see the way that we have gone about it to be the RIGHT way. I think we should give major reasons for them to NOT want to have smoking in bars.
To me, we should raise taxes significantly on the businesses that choose to allow smoking indoors, and if they spend the money to get adequate ventilation systems that people could smoke and nobody around them would smell the cigarettes nor would they smell like them after being there for a while, then they should be able to have smoking--and if ANY business can have the same ventilation standards that I mentioned, the same should be able to apply to any business. Businesses other than bars and cigar/cigarette/tobacco clubs that can't come to those standards I still strongly believe should not be allowed to have smoking.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh crap. I meant to vote for the one you voted for. I didn't see that one! I DEMAND A RECOUNT
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd have to re-do the whole poll to do that... 
I'll think about it...
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | I'd have to re-do the whole poll to do that...
I'll think about it... |
LOL, yeah I know. THat owuld be a lot of work. I was kidding. But you know where my vote really is, okay?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mmm kay. 
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| debateman wrote: | We're all anti-government when it comes to police check points, but when they are doing some 'rights infringment' that we like, we're all for it.
I'm just going to think the h word...
H*p*cr*t*  |
Police checkpoints where police can freely give tickets for silly things (oops, your windshield isn't clean enough, your garbage bag isn't in the right spot, etc.., look at this that we just found in your car that we placed there because we don't like you) are not even in the same league as telling businesses what their smoking policy should be.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | debateman wrote: | We're all anti-government when it comes to police check points, but when they are doing some 'rights infringment' that we like, we're all for it.
I'm just going to think the h word...
H*p*cr*t* |
Police checkpoints where police can freely give tickets for silly things (oops, your windshield isn't clean enough, your garbage bag isn't in the right spot, etc.., look at this that we just found in your car that we placed there because we don't like you) are not even in the same league as telling businesses what their smoking policy should be. |
Oh yes. Yes Kizzume they are. You simply choose not to see it that way. Which is your prerogative but the fundamental issues are exactly the same. Should the government be in the business of limiting individual freedoms in an effort to promote public safety? Your answer, reading that thread and then reading this one seems to be. "Sure government. As long as you are not taking MY personal freedoms then go ahead and take away!"
I'm not surprised. It's a typical tactic that most people employ. "They aren't MY personal freedoms so they don't really matter." That type of thinking is what got us into the mess we are in with personal freedoms. Obviously not enough people cared that YOUR freedoms might get violated at checkpoint.
If we want to stop the trend, we have to fight government encroachment on ALL personal freedoms, but because we can't get along and play nice as a society and support each other, we're going to continue to be divided and jump on zealous campaigns to limit other individuals rights.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
You driving a car doesn't give me lung cancer, nor does it make me smell like an ashtray.
I'd like to be able to have the opportunity to perform music without smelling like an ashtray OR chancing getting lung cancer. Cigarettes are different than most other issues because it directly affects the people around. If cigarettes were smokeless, this discussion wouldn't be happening.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Plus I wouldn't feel safer if we had police checkpoints. I believe that would tip the balance of power way too far in the direction of fascism.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | You driving a car doesn't give me lung cancer, nor does it make me smell like an ashtray.
I'd like to be able to have the opportunity to perform music without smelling like an ashtray OR chancing getting lung cancer. Cigarettes are different than most other issues because it directly affects the people around. If cigarettes were smokeless, this discussion wouldn't be happening. |
Actually, studies show that we are just as likely to get cancers from filling up our cars with toxic gasoline. We are more likely to die in an auto accident than cancer. I'd rather not smell your stinky car while I'm outside smoking. I'd rather not smell like gas after filling up. There are lot's of things that I'd rather not have, but that's part of living in a land that provides individual freedoms to it's citizens.
You continue to make my point for me. We are limiting the consumption of cigarettes because it benefits the public safety. We do the same thing with check points. We increase public safety with these checkpoints by enforcing laws on the roads that are designed for our safety. Individuals who are breaking the law directly impact the drivers around them. Why shouldn't we take every opportunity to limit their impact on others around them? Ooooooh... because that impacts the individuals rights.
I want a place where I can go and smoke like a freight train and not hear anyone complaining. Enjoy a game of pool, a dance or two, maybe a few drinks. You know... a bar. But those are going to be taxed into oblivion to implement these new Kizzume air filtration systems.
You can't have it both way's Kizz. Either you support public safety over personal freedom or you don't.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem I have with checkpoints is not the fact that they're primarily trying to use it to stop people from driving drunk--it's the ability for police to abuse those powers when they're doing a checkpoint to try to tag people for things that are completely unrelated. If there was a way to absolutely ensure that the ONLY thing that they can do anything about is if you are drunk, then I would actually agree with the checkpoints, but there's no way to do that.
In principal, I wouldn't mind the checkpoints if they only did what they were designed to do.
With the bar thing--there's no potential of that sort of thing happening.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why stop at just letting bars smoke? Why not let everywhere have smoking? If they don't like it, they can work somewhere else. What's the difference between that and me wanting to be able to perform smoke free?
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | The problem I have with checkpoints is not the fact that they're primarily trying to use it to stop people from driving drunk--it's the ability for police to abuse those powers when they're doing a checkpoint to try to tag people for things that are completely unrelated. If there was a way to absolutely ensure that the ONLY thing that they can do anything about is if you are drunk, then I would actually agree with the checkpoints, but there's no way to do that.
In principal, I wouldn't mind the checkpoints if they only did what they were designed to do.
With the bar thing--there's no potential of that sort of thing happening. |
Oh sure there is... the slippery slope that was started with the checkpoints is the same slippery slope that will impact bars since you've so eloquently pointed out that the slippery slope is something that will happen in the realm of personal freedoms. First, it will be the bar owners ability to allow smoking, then certain games like pool will be eliminated because of the potential slip risk. And certain liquors of course because they are 'more dangerous'. And as we move along, we're going to eliminate those television sets in the bar because they can lead to vision problems... And since we're doing in the bars, why don't we just enforce that across the board. No more TV's in your home. And no more bacon burgers... those are bad for you and thus interfere with public safety....
The negatives that you see with checkpoints are the same negatives that occur when you limit individual rights in any realm in the name of 'public safety'.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| debateman wrote: | | Kizzume wrote: | The problem I have with checkpoints is not the fact that they're primarily trying to use it to stop people from driving drunk--it's the ability for police to abuse those powers when they're doing a checkpoint to try to tag people for things that are completely unrelated. If there was a way to absolutely ensure that the ONLY thing that they can do anything about is if you are drunk, then I would actually agree with the checkpoints, but there's no way to do that.
In principal, I wouldn't mind the checkpoints if they only did what they were designed to do.
With the bar thing--there's no potential of that sort of thing happening. |
Oh sure there is... the slippery slope that was started with the checkpoints is the same slippery slope that will impact bars since you've so eloquently pointed out that the slippery slope is something that will happen in the realm of personal freedoms. First, it will be the bar owners ability to allow smoking, then certain games like pool will be eliminated because of the potential slip risk. And certain liquors of course because they are 'more dangerous'. And as we move along, we're going to eliminate those television sets in the bar because they can lead to vision problems... And since we're doing in the bars, why don't we just enforce that across the board. No more TV's in your home. And no more bacon burgers... those are bad for you and thus interfere with public safety....
The negatives that you see with checkpoints are the same negatives that occur when you limit individual rights in any realm in the name of 'public safety'. |
There has NEVER been a push for any of those things. There would have to be full-fledged legislation that supported those ideas, and I really don't think you're going to get people to vote for something that bans pool tables because people might get hurt.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
| |
|
