blah Wrote:Because if there is an arbitrary law against it, you can't. The same reason you can't open a "Hash" bar. Or why in some states/cities you can't have alcohol sales on Sunday. Or why in some counties that are "dry" there are no alcohol sales at all. All of these infringe upon people's rights to do business as they please, yet I only hear you complaining against the smoking ban.

Hash is illegal. Tobacco isn't. As for the alcohol bans, I think they're about as dumb as telling someone they can't open a smoking bar.

blah Wrote:Exactly. I think Kev's stance is very hypocritical. He doesn't want the government deciding what is right and wrong for him, but he has no problem declaring what is right and wrong for everyone else.

How? Has nothing to do with me. That transaction is between a patron and an owner. YOU should be no where in the picture. If you don't like it, you don't have to patronize the establishment. You don't have a right to anyway.

BTW, you guys comparing tobacco, a commodity that helped build this country into what it is today, with f'n crack and LSD really is a stretch.

RebelKev Wrote:BTW, you guys comparing tobacco, a commodity that helped build this country into what it is today, with f'n crack and LSD really is a stretch.

See, you ARE taking this on emotion. To you comparing drugs is a stretch...why? Because YOU feel one is socially acceptable and in your mind, because of tradition, is something people are constitutionally entitled to freely consume. But if someone wants to consume another substance that dosent pass your arbitrary litmus test, then they deserve to have their personal rights trampled. Hypocrite.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:See, you ARE taking this on emotion. To you comparing drugs is a stretch...why? Because YOU feel one is socially acceptable and in your mind, because of tradition, is something people are constitutionally entitled to freely consume. But if someone wants to consume another substance that dosent pass your arbitrary litmus test, then they deserve to have their personal rights trampled. Hypocrite.

"I" not the one that deemed it socially-acceptable. I don't wield that much power.

RebelKev Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:See, you ARE taking this on emotion. To you comparing drugs is a stretch...why? Because YOU feel one is socially acceptable and in your mind, because of tradition, is something people are constitutionally entitled to freely consume. But if someone wants to consume another substance that dosent pass your arbitrary litmus test, then they deserve to have their personal rights trampled. Hypocrite.

"I" not the one that deemed it socially-acceptable. I don't wield that much power.

We'll I'm pretty sure I've gathered that you believe the personal rights granted by the constitution apply to the right to consume any number of depressants, stimulants, psychotropics, etc. I.E. what one person decides to consume in the privacy of their own home and do with their own body is up to them. And then you turn an about face and declare that because the government has made arbitrary laws which infringe on those very rights you're standing up for, thats cool by you. Your quote:

Quote:Besides, what constitutional basis is there to ban it? Please, I want to hear this.

What constitutional basis is there to ban any other fricking drug?!

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Correction. Smoking is ILLEGAL in certain instances. There are COUNTLESS public bans on smoking.

Public ban in a public building such as a court, etc., I have no problem with. A private establishment, I DO have a problem with. The key words being public and private.

And the Federal Government controls the behavior in both.

It appears that the topic of the govt. imposing a hefty REGRESSIVE sin tax has been strayed from. However, I also do not like the govt. dictating a private owners property rights....let the market decide, if a majority of people want it, non-smoking bars will flourish.

BTW - I think the govt. should probably legalize drugs for adults and also tax the stuff. Treat the drugs like alcohol (which obviously is also a drug) and tax & regulate it. Also, if 18 yr olds can go fight our wars they sure as hell ought to be able to drink a beer (just don't then drive).

Majority does not really matter... there could be a legitimate market niche for a non-smoking bar when you allow smoking there. Forcing the smoking bars to change, however, is ridiculous.

hmm, not that it matters to our constitutional scholars, as to whom i have great....respect.

some things are legal. if you don't want them legal, quit taxing the sh*t out of them. prohibition was a big hit.

i might be referring to, oh, say, BOOZE AND SMOKES. you in a bar? get ready for BOOZE AND SMOKES. you don't like being around tobacco smoke, go where it ain't. they destroy coke, and pot, and amph; they don't tax it.

while millions roll into the coffers of various governments, redefine hypocrisy. ban tobacco or shut the f*** up.

oh yeah, p.s. give me the health stats cigs vs. booze.

you worry about unhealthy, don't go to the bar.

RebelKev Wrote:

Quote:Congressional Democrats Propose Cigarette Tax Hike to Pay for Children's Health Coverage

Sunday, September 30, 2007

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education.

The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue. ...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298663,00.html


Not because they would probably give a rat's ass about smoking, but you now have members of Congress, ELECTED representatives of the people, trying to destroy a legal industry. Now, I know left-wing liberals who think by emotion alone won't be able to put two and two together, but what happens when this money starts rolling in? Do you think it will actually go to it's intended target? Mississippi and a few other states tried this. How about this, what happens when people actually DO stop smoking? Do you think they will say, well, we'll have to cut back on funding the program because we're losing revenue due to people quitting? Hell no, they'll target something, or someone else. Another thing, how about all the people employed by Phillip Morris? R.J. Reynolds? How about the revenue the company provides to people's 401Ks?

Democrats, playing to the lowest common denominator.....all the time.

Screw the tobacco companies and the industry...They should have seen writing on the wall long ago and moved to other industries...Smoking is a filthy..stupid habit..I should know..I did it for 25 years...I dont care a bit if the industry folds...The world would be better off without the scourge of this toxic weed and its health hazards...Not to mention the amount of $$$$ that is pissed away dealing with them.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Screw the tobacco companies and the industry...They should have seen writing on the wall long ago and moved to other industries...Smoking is a filthy..stupid habit..I should know..I did it for 25 years...I dont care a bit if the industry folds...The world would be better off without the scourge of this toxic weed and its health hazards...Not to mention the amount of $$$$ that is pissed away dealing with them.

Spoken truly out of emotions. Tell me, do you want legislation dictated by emotion?

"My son was killed by a crackhead wielding a 9. We should ban guns!".

Arguments that come from emotion in the spin room? Never!

Quote:SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle if someone under age 18 is present. But the traffic stop would have to be made for another offense, such as speeding or an illegal turn, before the driver could be cited for smoking.

The ban, which takes effect Jan. 1, joins a string of smoking prohibitions adopted in California, including a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces and within 25 feet of a playground.

A Harvard School of Public Health report issued last year said secondhand smoke in cars can be up to 10 times more of a health risk than secondhand smoke in a home.

"Protecting the health of our children is among government's highest responsibilities," said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat. "It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do."

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_o...gger_bills

while i understand the reasoning its like kev says its private property.

Hey, in Cincinnati a mother left her kid in the car about a month ago and she died. Abuse? Nope. Neglect? Nope. In fact not a crime at all. Not even charged. Now everytime someone runs into a store and leaves their kid in the car it's making news the news. I'm just waiting for the first person that gets charged. I'm guessing they won't be making the argument that they can do what they ant on private property, however.

some people shouldn't be having kids. i think most people on this board will agree with that fact. and its extremely sad that people can forget their kids in a car what are they space cadets?

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Screw the tobacco companies and the industry...They should have seen writing on the wall long ago and moved to other industries...Smoking is a filthy..stupid habit..I should know..I did it for 25 years...I dont care a bit if the industry folds...The world would be better off without the scourge of this toxic weed and its health hazards...Not to mention the amount of $$$$ that is pissed away dealing with them.

Spoken truly out of emotions. Tell me, do you want legislation dictated by emotion?

"My son was killed by a crackhead wielding a 9. We should ban guns!".

Here is the difference....Tobacco companies knew for decades that this stuff kills people without letting them know and still pushed this stuff on our population without a thought....We have always known the guns are deadly weapons.

well i know where this thread is going now, so i'm gonna bow out and get in the bunker before the fur starts flyin.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I had a prof. that once made it clear to me what "rights" are....Your rights stop...where another mans begin....If smokers would have a little damn consideration for the rights of others not to have to smell our be exposed to their habit...This whole debate would be moot.

The "prof" apparently didn't include the owner's rights into his little scenario.

My point is that smokers...and I was one for 25 years...are the cause of all this...If they used some consideration in regard to their habit, maybe all this would not be an issue...Its looks like our country has expanded the rights of the nonsmoker...regardless of the rights of the owner...when it comes to this public health issue.
I agree...its a slippery slope