New smoking restrictions in Washington. Oh boy!

[Seru1]

I'll agree with you on this one.


and this one


i dont know anything about this one, but it does sound like you have a cool job. haha


You're right, I don't know all the ridiculous laws..mainly cause they don't/haven't yet affect me..and I feel ya on the fresh out of liberal college thing..and being an environmental science major I get it even more...but global warming is real..there's no way around that..you'll see in about 15 years, but that's beside the point..



I get your points, and I have to respect them. I just didnt see how someone could be so against the gov't..but I suppose you've got more experience in that field than me..so I'll just let it go.

It's no big deal man I am just glad we could have a good dialogue. I could go on and on.

For example the product 4 loko. Really not a harmful product when used responsibly.In The major death it was credited for people fail to realize the person who died was also on DIET PILLS. And Diet pills Alcohol and Caffeine is not a good mix. The cans were literally covered in warnings. The drink itself contained less alcohol and caffeine than a red bull and vodka(Still legal). And only as much caffeine as an Amp energy drink.


The FDA pulled it Citing public safety...when countless people consumed them to no harm. the brand will lose money and I doubt survive as without the caffeine it's just another lousy tasting malt beverage.


We'll have to argue in the QT Room about Global warming someday. I look forward to putting up my dukes against you again someday my friend.

[Powerspythons]

It's no big deal man I am just glad we could have a good dialogue. I could go on and on.

For example the product 4 loko. Really not a harmful product when used responsibly.In The major death it was credited for people fail to realize the person who died was also on DIET PILLS. And Diet pills Alcohol and Caffeine is not a good mix. The cans were literally covered in warnings. The drink itself contained less alcohol and caffeine than a red bull and vodka(Still legal). And only as much caffeine as an Amp energy drink.


The FDA pulled it Citing public safety...when countless people consumed them to no harm. the brand will lose money and I doubt survive as without the caffeine it's just another lousy tasting malt beverage.


We'll have to argue in the QT Room about Global warming someday. I look forward to putting up my dukes against you again someday my friend.

Yeah I remember 4loko...it was awful and I didn't care they got rid of it..I also think that it only got REALLY popular after someone died from it..it added allure to it.

And I'll be sure to go back and get my college notes ready for the global warming thing. LOL.

[Seru1]

Yeah I remember 4loko...it was awful and I didn't care they got rid of it..I also think that it only got REALLY popular after someone died from it..it added allure to it.

And I'll be sure to go back and get my college notes ready for the global warming thing. LOL.

Yeah it tasted terrible, but there was no reason to get rid of it thats my point. Just because you don't like it or don't use it doesn't mean you shouldn't care when some bureaucrat axes it. Someday it will be something you care about, and when no one is by your side who will be to blame? You didn't stand up for there rights why should they stand for you?

Thats america. I stand for your right to be free and you stand for mine, We keep watch on the government. They are just regular joe's like us. Not All knowing. Heck in many cases they know less than us.

People just stood by and let them ruin people's companies and jobs, why? "I don't drink it. It's not my buisness." People don't think long term, Big picture.

[Inknsteel]

Then you don't understand our government we aren't based on Majority rule. We're based on a Representative republic governed by a constitution. We are not a democracy.

So you don't smoke around kids. Fine whatever have a parade. I don't smoke period.

Well yay for you then, maybe we should throw YOU a parade. And if this is the case, then don't take it personally because you aren't part of the group this effects, nor are you one of the offenders whose lack of regard for other people has caused it to become legislated. In an ideal society, we would all respect the rights of others and would make conscious efforts to ensure that exercising our own rights does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.

My entire point was it's not the right of the government to tell a private entity they can't allow smoking on the premises. You can choose not to go to that private entity. Speak and vote with your dollar. If your right they will close down from lack of business. Now if the government wants to ban smoking in government owned areas like parks and government buildings then fine thats there right.

And this right here brings me full circle to my initial post in this thread. We're talking about GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. According to posters in the state of Washington, there is already legislation on the books banning smoking within 25 feet of entrances to public buildings. So, the "new" legislation that warranted this entire thread was only talking about the government enforcing a ban on smoking within 25 feet of the public entrance of this government owned or subsidized building. They own it, they're the landlords, they're the final word.

[knox]

My arguments have nothing to do with the government and smokers rights.

My arguments have to do with NON SMOKERS rights. If smokers want to go into a sealed room with fans and filters that contain and destroy the smoke so the rest of us don't have to smell it and smell LIKE it, I say FULL SPEED AHEAD.

The rights of smokers INFRINGE on the rights of non-smokers. I don't care if you smoke, how much you smoke, or how much you pay for smoking. Just please, please don't make me endure it with you.

[Seru1]

Well yay for you then, maybe we should throw YOU a parade. And if this is the case, then don't take it personally because you aren't part of the group this effects, nor are you one of the offenders whose lack of regard for other people has caused it to become legislated. In an ideal society, we would all respect the rights of others and would make conscious efforts to ensure that exercising our own rights does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.



And this right here brings me full circle to my initial post in this thread. We're talking about GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. According to posters in the state of Washington, there is already legislation on the books banning smoking within 25 feet of entrances to public buildings. So, the "new" legislation that warranted this entire thread was only talking about the government enforcing a ban on smoking within 25 feet of the public entrance of this government owned or subsidized building. They own it, they're the landlords, they're the final word.

I would like a parade, can we do it brazil style cause I like feathers.


Anyway. this is about Government subsidized housing?! Well then...Totally there right to ban it there. Don't I feel dumb.


I was only speaking on behalf of all the privately owned businesses that have been reemed. But if you take government money then you open yourself up to there big bad boot.

Sooo yeah. Done here. On to drinking.

[eracer]

God everyone wants government to do everything for them. Why not solve your own problems instead of crying to government to take away our rights.

I'm not allowed to solve the problem of an inconsiderate smoker in my airspace. There are laws that prevent me from handling it myself.

It's akin to a neighbor who thinks it's MY problem when I'm bothered by his barking dog. I'm under no obligation to move, and I have to depend on the law to solve the problem for me - mostly because I would go to jail if I solved it myself.

Look, I'm a constitutional libertarian. Whatever you want to do for and to yourself is your business...as long as it doesn't infringe on my right to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the way I see fit. Smoking in my space does. Take it somewhere else. If you won't, then you force me to enact laws to force you.

[eracer]

My entire point is the government doesn't have the right to ban smoking in private homes and businesses. Thats my point. The business have the right, but not the government. That alone is the crux of my argument.

I agree 100% with this statement. But that's not really what you've been saying...

[Carlene16]

I have read this thread from start to finish and have been following it closely.

I really only have one thing to contribute.

I took an anatomy class this year and took a picture of these lungs...

This is what lungs look like from second hand smoke, you can still see tar...Obviously second hand smoke has SOME effect.



Now these pictures aren't mine but this is what a healthy pair of lungs looks like...




And last of course this is what smokers lungs look like, this is from someone who smoked almost all of their life...






Now if you are someone who is alright with doing that to your body, your LUNGS, something is not right in your head.

[Egapal]

My entire point is the government doesn't have the right to ban smoking in private homes and businesses. Thats my point. The business have the right, but not the government. That alone is the crux of my argument.

You guys are right I could get cancer later. But can you prove it was caused by Second hand smoke? No. Lots of things cause cancer, and science changes all the time cause it's made by fallible man. Heck Scientists change there minds everyday. Take eggs as an example. For years the couldn't decide if they were good or bad for you.


So say I get get cancer. Prove it was because of smoke inhalation. You really can't. The fact is despite all the research we don't know a ton about cancer, and unless you two are cancer researchers, you don't know alot about it either. Oh you might know more than me, thats no feat. But you can't prove the cause of someone's cancer is second hand smoke or even 1st hand. There's alot of factors.

How do you guys explain all the people who smoke like a fire and live to be 80, 90, even 100?

Look I'm not saying smoking is good for ya. Heck no everyone knows it's bad for your health. I'm saying it's been blown out of proportion. And I'm saying people have the right to do things that are bad for them.

People do have the right to do things they want and in general I think people should be allowed to smoke in a private home. Now that being said these are homes that are subsidized by tax payer money. If you want to spend your money to buy cigarettes then make enough to afford a residence all by yourself along with those cigarettes.