0

>How much freedom do you kids want to give away?

To answer this, in all fairness and honesty, and I think even many smokers can agree, I think smokers should be able to smoke in their own homes (although I encourage them to at least try to keep it away from family members that don't smoke) and in other private places or possibly even in some public places where everyone present agrees it is okay (which is a bit unlikely). I think it is okay to smoke in outdoor areas like on the sidewalk, etc. I think it is fair enough restrict it from public indoor places like restaurants (for the nonsmokers it's already everywhere else as I've allowed it so far anyway). This is not restricting your freedoms it just allows you to share other freedoms with others in the same area. If you're in a restaurant and want to smoke then step outside. Is that fair enough?

0

This is not restricting your freedoms

Not restricting freedoms yet. The law on it's own is not a big deal. I'm against it(I never smoked) because I don't think it is the government business to decide these things. But this law is the beginning of a slippery slope. What gets banned next? With each little thing people will keep saying "it's no big deal" before you know it, all our freedoms are gone.

0

>. If you're in a restaurant and want to smoke then step outside. Is that fair enough?

No it isn't too much to ask -- nor is it too much to ask a non-smoker to step outside for a few minutes to get some smoke-free air when eating in a resturant that allows smoking. I don't see the difference.

0

What gets banned next?

The next big ban-push is requiring resturants and fast-food places to remove all trans-fat from the food they prepare. That has already started in some states. Get a nutreation list from McDonalds and you will see that most of their food contains some amount of trans-fat. This will be changed in the future.

0

Just finished catching up..

Not restricting freedoms yet. The law on it's own is not a big deal. I'm against it(I never smoked) because I don't think it is the government business to decide these things. But this law is the beginning of a slippery slope. What gets banned next? With each little thing people will keep saying "it's no big deal" before you know it, all our freedoms are gone.

This is the one post that really grabbed my attention.. And he's right.. the government is always gaining more power. But I do think it is their responsibility in this specific scenario b/c it affects the well-being of all Americans.

No it isn't too much to ask -- nor is it too much to ask a non-smoker to step outside for a few minutes to get some smoke-free air when eating in a resturant that allows smoking. I don't see the difference.

Yea, no-smokers will still be affected by the smoke.. You smokers are too biased in your own opinion (Not saying that we aren't..). Smoking harms others, and if you want to do it then do it elsewhere. The fact of the matter is this legislation is taking America by storm.. soon it will be in every state's constitution, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Too bad, you loose. ;)

0

No it isn't too much to ask -- nor is it too much to ask a non-smoker to step outside for a few minutes to get some smoke-free air when eating in a resturant that allows smoking. I don't see the difference.

I do, whereas the smoker experiences some time away from an addiction, the nonsmoker experiences unhealthy air that can even cause his/her death.

0

The fact of the matter is this legislation is taking America by storm.. soon it will be in every state's constitution, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Too bad, you loose. ;)

I just hate legislation that is not based on fact.

Once upon a time, when people understood, this was important.

0

the nonsmoker experiences unhealthy air that can even cause his/her death.

POINT TO THE PROOF!

Please, for God's sake. I'm begging you people!

0

Isn't legislation supposed to benefit the people? And don't we live in a democracy where majority rules? When legislation comes up in favor of the majority and you don't like it then that's kinda too bad. One could say that's a bad aspect of democracy.

0

Isn't legislation supposed to benefit the people?

Not exactly.

And don't we live in a democracy where majority rules? When legislation comes up in favor of the majority and you don't like it then that's kinda too bad. One could say that's a bad aspect of democracy.

Not exactly.

Where have y'all be learnin'?

0

Dude Dave quit trying to back up tobacco. Most people disagree with you therefore you lose. That's how democracy works.. Lifes a bi***, get on with it.

0

Dude Dave quit acting so pissed off.. Most people disagree with you therefore you lose. That's how democracy works.. Lifes a bi***, get on with it.

Hey! Cool! Josh want slavery again.

Can any of you young'uns come up with an argument?

0

Hey! Cool! Josh want slavery again.

Can any of you young'uns come up with an argument?

I'm sure the majority of Americans would disagree with that. Game, set, match.

0

But I do think it is their responsibility in this specific scenario b/c it affects the well-being of all Americans.

This is a slippery slope as well. The government can just say "it's for the well being of everyone" to do anything they want. Most deaths in a vehicle accident are because of high crashes. Lets make the speed limit everywhere 20 mph, it's for the good of everyone. Just like the government is already doing with "it's for national security" clause.

0

Dana Reeve, died 44 of lung cancer, nonsmoker. Google it if you want. If you honestly don't think second hand smoke is dangerous than go ahead and smoke around your kids. Secondly, if you will ask me to prove every little detail, then why don't you prove to me how you are able to communicate with me through your computer to mine so that I know I'm not just arguing with myself right now? Where's the proof? Let's see some evidence.

0

I'm sure the majority of Americans would disagree with that. Game, set, match.

huh?

A Constitutional amendment was made to help circumvent the tyranny of the majority.

They didn't teach that either?

0

This is a slippery slope as well. The government can just say "it's for the well being of everyone" to do anything they want. Most deaths in a vehicle accident are because of high crashes. Lets make the speed limit everywhere 20 mph, it's for the good of everyone. Just like the government is already doing with "it's for national security" clause.

I guess now we should let murder be legal because the ban on murder is for the good of everyone which is a doctrine that you seem to disagree with.

0

A Constitutional amendment was made to help circumvent the tyranny of the majority.

They didn't teach that either?

Put it this way. If they brought back slavery there would be a revolution, led by me. I wouldn't fall easily. I would even have the larger portion of the military on my side and many politicians.

And that wasn't an amendment, it was within the articles of the Constitution I'm pretty sure. And besides, where's your proof?

0

Oh, kids.

Some funny quotes:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." --- Nikita Kruschev, USSR

0

And that wasn't an amendment, it was within the articles of the Constitution I'm pretty sure. And besides, where's your proof?

The 3/5ths compromise was voted for by the black population?

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.