These Recent Smoking Attacks.

These Recent Smoking Attacks. [+ favourites]

If any of you keep up with American news, you would see that there has been a recent effort to stop smoking in "public" places, and very recently movies.

I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places, and I find it completly right for the government to stop people smoking in public places.

But this is what pissed me off all last night. Such things that the New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, have done aren't even right. I find that every time I see a kid in my school hand out a petition to the students saying that they will try and pass a law against smoking in public places such as resturants, it makes me see how illightened they are.

It is when I find things like office buildings, resturants, and bars on the list of building people can't smoke in. I don't remember but when did the government get to call these PRIVATE companies a public area. I find that the owners of these stores should be allowed to choose whether they want be smoke free or not. I don't think this is at all a public thing to touch. There is a difference between being able to ban airplanes from smoking because of also the danger of fire, but when you do it in a bar. That is showing easily we are being able to be pushed over.

If we are going to let a government that about 200 years ago was founded on ultimate freedom, try and outsmart us to be able to do what they want, then we are no where near being an intellectual race.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

Indeed, the goverment has no right to ban smoking in private establishments. In public, fine, its a real pain to none smokers. But in a private clearly marked establishment, none smokers have nothing to complain about.

"AIDS is God's way of sending Catholics to heaven."

You have to look at it in a political manner.

They don't do this because they care about non-smokers. It's part of this whole revolution against smoking.

Our infrastructure was setup years ago with certain laws that became permanent. This included the legalization of certain drugs and the illegalization of others. Then billion dollar corporations were built around these laws.

The point is people love an "Activist" politician and it is in their best interests to slowly weed smoking out of the "legal" sphere for their career.

This is why there are no cigarette commercials on TV, and warnings etc.

They implement these laws on private establishments to change the way society reacts to smoking, so it becomes a normal thing to smoke in designated areas. It is in an effort to reduce the general ease of smoking and dissuade people from smoking.

I agree they should not be able to implement rules on private establishments, but there is no limit to this. All private buildings must abide by fire laws, correct? Well then why can't private establishments that do not abide by fire laws just stick a warning on their bar saying they have not complied, and you may die inside.

You cant do that because it is unsafe for the patrons, just as second hand smoke is bad for the patrons.

"A good man is identical to the corrupt man, save for the contradictions in his words and actions."

I can understand Bloomberg's political motives, but regardless, I think people who smoke do have some rights. And that is the freedom to smoke on property where the owner gives them the freedom to smoke.

"You cant do that because it is unsafe for the patrons, just as second hand smoke is bad for the patrons."
People deserve the freedom to do some things, even if it is ba to their health. If safety is the reason for this new law, then they should just ban smoking altogether, that's a lot safer.

"AIDS is God's way of sending Catholics to heaven."

There is a new law out that bans smoking in movies because it will influence kids to smoke if they see someone famous doing it. Now I understand this, they have a valid point. But if this is their case, then what? violence, sex, drugs, and language is all good for a kid to watch? Or is it that if these things are in a movie, then the ratings change and people are informed about it. So why not do the same for smoking. Just say that if smoking is in a movie, then the movie can't be G rated. That makes more sense then saying that you can't smoke at all.

It is just sad to watch people lose their freedoms and watch them just sit there in awe.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

"There is a new law out that bans smoking in movies because it will influence kids to smoke if they see someone famous doing it. Now I understand this, they have a valid point."
Sucks. You know, I hope they let the movie industry turn into an actual art instead of making law after law who restrict the worthwhile directors.

"AIDS is God's way of sending Catholics to heaven."

Movies are movies.... make it rate that there is smoking depicted in it.

I really doubt that is an actual law btw... I could be wrong but it seems reasonably unrealistic.

"A good man is identical to the corrupt man, save for the contradictions in his words and actions."

you are right, it isn't a law

http://www.msnbc.com/news/957972.asp#BODY

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

I completely agree with the laws that ban smoking in certain areas, but don't agree with the laws that strip the owner of that establishment from making his/her own choice. The solution should be to put a sign up saying "This is a place where you could die from smoke inhilation!"...hey that might cover the fire code thing too.
The trouble with these laws that are being passed to outlaw this and that from T.V., Movies, Songs etcetera, is that the Government is just giving parents less and less responsibility. I mean come on! Give me a goddamn break, fuckin' watch your kids, it is not up to the Government to babysit your children! This is probably a far broader discussion than this one issue; but where does the banning stop?

"I'd like to say something profound....."SOMETHING PROFOUND""

As a smoker, I would tend to think that the movement to ban smoking is probably more related to the cost of health care. It is more than annoying to some non smokers but they could be a very small percentage of the population (they probably can't go out in public anyway). What really burns me is more of a olfactory offense (smell) than a real health issue.