Banning smokine, Yea or Nay.

[SouthernDem2006]

There seems to be a push around the country to ban smoking outright. Not only are some pushing for a ban in all public places but they also seek to make cigarettes illegal. If you ban cigarettes they will also go after cigars and you can rule out marijuana ever becoming legal.

I have no problem with banning it in some public places but draw the line at an outright ban. Also, I think bars should have a choice. Patrons can choose a smokey or smoke free bar.

Those annoying TV ads with the people on bullhorns make me want to go out and buy a pack even though I do not smoke cigarettes.
(Just saw one of those ads during a commercial break. FOOTBALL!)


SD

[KyndCulture]

I'm a smoker.

I don't like to smoke where I'm eating, so I'm cool with that.

And bit tobacco is too big of a lobby, there will never be an outright ban on a national level.

[SubstituteTeacher]

Adults should be allowed to smoke in the privacy of their own home. I am against a complete ban on smoking.

[BlueBerry Pick'n]

you say'n DaKine?

[Zemo]

I smoked for 13 years and have been off the cancerettes for 21 years on October 5th.
I would'nt deny those who need the nicotine fix, but let's not forget 2nd hand smoke effects.

We need Mary Jane legal too. Imagine the tax revenues that can be made, as long as it don't go to war.
We could use that high and with the crap that has gone on in the last 6 years we need it more than ever.

[webhead]

I smoke on and off, going months and years without smoking. When I smoke, I do not smoke in public places not do I smoke in the car or in the house. I go outside where my smoke will not affect others. I am respectful of others who do not want to breathe 2nd hand.

When I am in a non-smoking period and enter a public place where smoking is allowed, I try to get as far away from the smoke as I can, or I go elsewhere. I do not ask people not to smoke.

Laws prohibiting smoking in publc places would not be necessary if every smoker adopted my rules. Since smokers do not, there are more and more laws prohibiting smoking.

So, I say laws banning smoking in public places okay, laws banning sale of cigarettes not okay.

[BlueBerry Pick'n]

*Does* the US have Compassion Clubs?

:hiding:

[SouthernDem2006]

*Does* the US have Compassion Clubs?

:hiding:

No idea what those are...

[webhead]

*Does* the US have Compassion Clubs?


:hiding:
Yes BlueBerry, there is a Compassion Club. But is is a subgroup of the Procrastinators Club of America!

[dr.strangelove]

There seems to be a push around the country to ban smoking outright. Not only are some pushing for a ban in all public places but they also seek to make cigarettes illegal. If you ban cigarettes they will also go after cigars and you can rule out marijuana ever becoming legal.

I have no problem with banning it in some public places but draw the line at an outright ban. Also, I think bars should have a choice. Patrons can choose a smokey or smoke free bar.

Those annoying TV ads with the people on bullhorns make me want to go out and buy a pack even though I do not smoke cigarettes.
(Just saw one of those ads during a commercial break. FOOTBALL!)
SD

I am glad cancer sticks are illegal in public places in NYC. If you want to smoke in your home, thats fine with me; but, I think any parent that smokes around young children should be beaten with a large blunt object.

I smoked for ten years and quit about eight years ago. I would never go back. It feels to good to run without coughing.

[bikerider]

I agree. It's fine not to smoke in restaurants, but when they ban smoking on beaches that's going overboard

[GymGeekAus]

Adults should be allowed to smoke in the privacy of their own home. I am against a complete ban on smoking. I'm not allowed to smoke in my home. It's in the lease. I have to go outside.

Should I have legal protection against that sort of clause in my lease?

[Zemo]

We are not allowed to smoke in common hallways and rooms by order of the county and we have state laws about smoking inside public gathering places in New York.

[Christine]

I agree. It's fine not to smoke in restaurants, but when they ban smoking on beaches that's going overboard

Where do the butts usually go? I'm a smoker and I HATE seeing butts on the ground...it's appalling! I do not smoke in my home or my car...never where my kids were breathing, not ever, and NEVER allow it in my home or car. I've quite twice and started again. Gearing up now for the final quit...I have to.

[webhead]

Where do the butts usually go? I'm a smoker and I HATE seeing butts on the ground...it's appalling! I do not smoke in my home or my car...never where my kids were breathing, not ever, and NEVER allow it in my home or car. I've quite twice and started again. Gearing up now for the final quit...I have to.
Wish you the best.

[Sarah]

One cannot legislate healthy (or unhealthy) lifestyle choices. It doesn't work.

[dr.strangelove]

One cannot legislate healthy (or unhealthy) lifestyle choices. It doesn't work.

This brings up the fundamental issue here, when a person engages in a dangerous activity that costs me money, should we be able to ban the practice. Smoking increases medicare and medicaid costs. The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

How do you feel aboit this? I am a huge advocate for free or very low cost healthcare. If a person engages in an activity that pushes healthcare costs up, should I be able to limit what activities I will pay for "healing." To be honest, I don't think this is a good idea, or even if this would be possible, but I though it might make for some interesting discussion. What do you think?

[GymGeekAus]

I think punishing smokers for the nature of the medical industry is kind of short-sighted.

If America really cared about how their healthcare dollars were being spent, we'd shift our research focus away from "treatment" and towards "cures."

But there is little money in curing things. Treatment is the gift that keeps on giving, over and over.

I also think if America was really concerned with getting people to stop smoking, they'd actually put programs in place that did exactly that--to help smokers voluntarily quit. Sure, there are educational public programs out there. But are there public recovery programs? Hmmm. It seems there should be all sorts of these kinds of efforts, but I can't think of any public ones. I guess addiction-breaking is big business, too.

Let them tax the hell out of my cigarettes if they must. But I'm gonna watch, and I have serious doubts that this money is going to go where they say it is going to go. Will that be swept under the rug too, because I'm a smoker?

And oh boy am I glad they can't tax sex yet.

[dr.strangelove]

And oh boy am I glad they can't tax sex yet.

Can you imagine a Sex Tax. That would be great. I can picture the IRS Form with a Table organizing various positions and sexual acts with different tax rates.

Imagine trying to fight the tax bill. "We didn't do THAT, did we?"

[FieryLocks]

Outlaw smoking? Would never happen. Just think of what happened when they tried to outlaw alcohol.

[Sarah]

This brings up the fundamental issue here, when a person engages in a dangerous activity that costs me money, should we be able to ban the practice. Smoking increases medicare and medicaid costs. The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

How do you feel aboit this? I am a huge advocate for free or very low cost healthcare. If a person engages in an activity that pushes healthcare costs up, should I be able to limit what activities I will pay for "healing." To be honest, I don't think this is a good idea, or even if this would be possible, but I though it might make for some interesting discussion. What do you think?

People who eat too much lousy food develop a shitload of health problems as well- type 2 diabetes, increased risk of heart attack and stroke, even an increase in cancer. Do we not care for anyone who has eaten poorly over their lifetime either?

I'm not a smoker. I'm an ex (very light) smoker and I don't care to ever smoke again, so it's not personal here. I work in healthcare (and have directly cared for people with severe pulmonary problems related to long term smoking) and seriously, how the Hell does one enforce healthy lifestyle choices and just who dictates the terms of these lifestyle choices? Who decides whose addictive behaviors are worth paying for should they become ill?

That's the problem. In an ideal world, everyone would be absent of any addictive or self-destructing behaviors, but that's not the case.

[Zowanda Colleen]

As a life long NON-smoker I don't think smoking should be banned. It is a personal choice. Yes, second hand smoke does affect the environment and just about all resturants I visit here in PHX have great ventilation between smoking and non-smoking sections. So that is not a problem for me.

They want to banned smoking mainly because of the health issues yet this Congress and adminstrations relax pollution laws for corporations.

So joe blow walking down the street smokng and I pass through his exhaled cloud for 10 seconds is worse then what the factory or car on the street is spewing out in larger numbers?????

My biggest beef with smokers is that I hate the way my hair and clothes smell after hanging with them.

[Bonnie B.]

This brings up the fundamental issue here, when a person engages in a dangerous activity that costs me money, should we be able to ban the practice. Smoking increases medicare and medicaid costs. The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

How do you feel aboit this? I am a huge advocate for free or very low cost healthcare. If a person engages in an activity that pushes healthcare costs up, should I be able to limit what activities I will pay for "healing." To be honest, I don't think this is a good idea, or even if this would be possible, but I though it might make for some interesting discussion. What do you think?

This is my response to your questions, exactly as I would word it if you were seriously proposing your "Devil's advocate" position:

This brings up the fundamental issue here, when a person engages in a dangerous activity that costs me money, should we be able to ban the practice.

Smoking increases medicare and medicaid costs.
The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

Overeating increases medicare and medicaid costs. The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

STD's, contracted from sex, increase medicare and medicaid costs, as well as sucking money from the public trough for maintaining free clinics.
The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

Birth control increases medicare and medicaid costs.
The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

Pregnancies increase medicare and medicaid costs.
The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

Allergies and asthma contracted later in life (or post-utero) increase medicare and medicaid costs.
The risks are now well known. If someone engages in the practices leading to the above and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

Non-congenital cardiac disease/dysfunction increases medicare and medicaid costs.
The risks are now well known. If someone engages in the practices leading to the above and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

Contracting cancer increases medicare and medicaid costs.
The risks are now well known. If someone engages in the practices leading to the above and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

Consumption of alcohol increases medicare and medicaid costs.
The risks are now well known. If someone engages in this practice and it depletes funds, is that a valid basis for me to object and to legislate lifestyle choices.

I should be able to leave the above as is without fuirther commentary, but why take chances?
The original "Devil's advocate" question is a slippery slope. Once the decision is made to not make available or to provide medical care for one group, the same rationale will (not **can** or **might**) be used to deny medical care to others for the exact same reasoning.
IMO, this would be ten steps backwards from any sort of universal health care plan. It would also jeopardize the precious little "low-cost" <snort> health care already (more or less) available.

F*** A & N!!!

<sig modified for another's appeasement>

[Nanette]

Should smoking be banned? Yes if they ban fast food and alcohol. I don't see that happening do you? Alcohol not only kills those who drink, it causes domestic violence, murder on the highways etc. Drinking is much worse in the long haul than smoking.
Fast foods are killing as surely as smoking or drinking. The worst of it is, we are feeding this horrid stuff to our kids because they cry if they can't have a MacDonalds or Taco Bell or Pizza hut.
Better to look into these lifestyles before you start throwing stones.:SoapBox:

[Ben Burch]

No, and we should UN-ban recreational drugs.

The Government has a duty to INFORM people (via warnings on packages) that a product isn't good for you, but no right to prohibit a free adult from doing anything he or she wants to do to themselves.

[Zemo]

Is this a sleeper thread?

Nanette awoke a thread that has been dormant for over a year.
Never saw that before.
And you can see some members on this thread we don't see any more.
Miss em too.:icon_cry:

[Zemo]

No, and we should UN-ban recreational drugs.

The Government has a duty to INFORM people (via warnings on packages) that a product isn't good for you, but no right to prohibit a free adult from doing anything he or she wants to do to themselves.

But...you have to take into consideration that the smoker is giving off carbon monoxide emissions like a motor vehicle.
And why should non-smokers in the immediate environment have to breath in those emissions?

[Xena]

No, and we should UN-ban recreational drugs.

The Government has a duty to INFORM people (via warnings on packages) that a product isn't good for you, but no right to prohibit a free adult from doing anything he or she wants to do to themselves.

The government has a duty (IMO) to inform you of the contents of the package. It does not have the duty to tell you if it is good for you. It is the consumer's responsibility to decide, based on information supplied, if the product is good for him or herself. If the true, and complete, contents of cigarettes were listed on the package, there might be many more non-smokers.

[blindsquirrel]

Ask Thomas Jefferson, if you could, if laws are made to preserve our liberties or to restrict them.

[TheBoss(DCA)]

A ban of any kind, no matter how good or noble it's intent or cause, just goes against my nature.