Oh, if I only had a dollar for everytime some anti-smoking-ban advocate pulled out the old plutonium arguement.
:biglaugh:
:wink:
The Minnesota way around the smoking ban
- Thread starter cycloneworld
- Start date
Oh, if I only had a dollar for everytime some anti-smoking-ban advocate pulled out the old plutonium arguement.
:biglaugh:
:wink:
Because the plutonium lobby doesn't have near the money or power of the cigarette lobby. Also, the government doesn't currently make millions off of plutonium sales like the do cigarette sales.
My guess is if both of those were equal, plutonium would be legal.
My guess is if both of those were equal, plutonium would be legal.
It is a slippery slope, yes...but we also have to be careful not to cry out that the sky is falling just because the government is going to regulate something.
For as long as people will do things to themselves and others that is harmful then we will always have regulations and restrictions put upon us or enforced. We don't live in a utopian society and until we do we will always have to fight to find balance between freedoms and responsibilities. That's what this is about. I just don't get how people can start hollering about the government taking away freedom and how they want to control your every movement and thought. Do you really think our state legislators sit in private rooms and talk about ways they can futher take away freedoms? Really?
- Jun 20, 2006
- 38,273
- 22,548
- 113
see, I make it my responsibility to ensure my kids do not eat in a smoky restaurant or bar... or to hang around places that allow smokers.
That is my responsibility.. and I am fine with the restrictions I placed on myself.
-keep.
The only reason why cigarettes are still legal to smoke is because Federal and state governments can tax the living snot out of it. As a matter of fact, the state of Iowa expects to lose something like $8 million in cigarette tax revenue alone just due to this ban (they'll probably ramp up the tax in order to make up for it). As soon as it becomes clear that the government isn't making enough money on the tax on tobacco it will become illegal.
My opinion is you shouldn't HAVE to place those restrictions on your family and yourself. You SHOULD be able to go out without having to worry about exposing your family and yourself to secondhand smoke.
That's good for you. But I don't want to have to explain to my daughter why we can't go certain places...I don't want to have to explain to her the dangers of smoking at all. I hope by the time she is older that smoking is like a black and white TV. I hope thats one thing I don't have to educate her about because it's one thing that as a people we've been smart enough to leave behind--whether we did it on our own or because we had to legislate it out of existence.
Once again though, since it's obviously not in the cards to ban cigarettes completely, why is it not possible to put restrictions on how/where they are used?
And if I could just point out some hypocracy here, keep I believe earlier you said,
Would you care to pick a side? How can you apparently be advocating a complete ban on cigarettes and yet be against restrictions on smoking because they remove freedoms?
There's a plutonium lobby? Could you give the names of people or companies that are lobbying to make plutonium legal?
I guess that's the thing that gets me-
Few complain about speed limits, traffic lights, traffic signs, drivers licenses, and automobile registration. These things prevent the public from having the right to drive pretty much however they want.
Now, before you say that driving and smoking have very little in common, they do have more than you would think:
-You have to be 18 to legally do both (well, without parental supervision in driving's case).
-Restrictions on both activities prevent one person's activities from harming the public (driving laws such as right of way and speed limit intend to keep people from driving recklessly while proposed smoking laws intend to keep people from exposing those around them to harmful secondhand smoke)
-Preventing restrictions on both can potentially harm the public.
- Jun 20, 2006
- 38,273
- 22,548
- 113
It isn't me being hypocritical, it is the State of Iowa's stance. Besides the remark was rhetoric and I pointed that out.... I don't believe in banning cigarettes all together or smoking for that fact.
-keep.
I would say I don't agree with it, nobody is shoving trans fats down people's throats. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a requirement that the restaurants should have to disclose if they are using trans fats.
Oops, that was in response to jdogg's post
Oops, that was in response to jdogg's post
Last edited:
You missed my point (which was probably easy to do...we really need a sarcasm font). What I was saying that IF there was a plutonium lobby and plutonium sales contributed as much money to the government as cigarettes do, that is would probably be legal.
I think that's a stretch but I see the point you're making, and I don't disagree. It's all about money. But that doesn't mean what they're doing is bad, they should just be doing more.
This might be the first thing you and I have agreed upon. Ever.
Let's try and not let that happen again. :wink:
Jesus don't put something that out in the open, they're going to revoke my liberal membership card.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Move along, nothing to see here.
If smoking goes, then alcohol is next. It's bad for you, it's addictive, and it can affect others (drunk driving, violent behavior, etc.). Also, we all pay through taxes for health care and programs to help alcoholics. I think we tried this once....how did it go again?
Also, since when is a private restaurant or bar a public place? If they allow smoking, and you don't like it, then just don't go. If there is such a huge market for non-smoking bars and restaurants, why don't people just open them up and rake in the cash? And since when is it a right to go to a bar? You say that smokers don't have the right to do it because affects others....just don't go to the bar. What about the workers? Who says its their right to work at a specific place? Just get a different job.
Everyone says it's not your right to smoke in these "public" places, but who says its a non-smokers' right to go there in the first place?
Also, since when is a private restaurant or bar a public place? If they allow smoking, and you don't like it, then just don't go. If there is such a huge market for non-smoking bars and restaurants, why don't people just open them up and rake in the cash? And since when is it a right to go to a bar? You say that smokers don't have the right to do it because affects others....just don't go to the bar. What about the workers? Who says its their right to work at a specific place? Just get a different job.
Everyone says it's not your right to smoke in these "public" places, but who says its a non-smokers' right to go there in the first place?
Just to weigh in here, but as a smoker myself I don't really mind the ban on smoking in restaraunts as it doesn't affect me. I don't smoke in other people's houses or private properties because I think in a way that it's disrespectful to do so. However, bars and restaraunts are private businesses, not public places. By taking away the right of the owner of the establishment to choose, you are telling people something they HAVE to do with their own property. If enough employees quit because they didn't want to work in a smoky environment, or not enough patrons visited the place, it would go belly-up and the owner would likely choose to discontinue the allowance of smoking there. What really gets me is that the choice to decide what to do with your own property is taken away here.
Smoking in kNU public areas is going the way of the dinosaur.
One argument that I heard recently is second hand smoke endangers future health of the workers.
Smoking affects pregnant women. So does bar alcohol. Hmmm.
Yet the tax money is appreciated.
Tough call. Like use of ethanol. Two sides to tough issues.
One argument that I heard recently is second hand smoke endangers future health of the workers.
Smoking affects pregnant women. So does bar alcohol. Hmmm.
Yet the tax money is appreciated.
Tough call. Like use of ethanol. Two sides to tough issues.
Last edited:
