View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 20th, 2014, 8:30 pm



Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
RegJoe... please stop being ignorant here. Common sense? Your "common sense" conflicts with ACTUALLY measuring the air around a smoker outside. Where is your "common sense" now?

I swear you guys just respond without thinking or looking at the posted reports. But oh no... commons sense tells us that it just goes magically away into the ether.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 15th, 2011, 3:11 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2828
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
Did you read the whole report you quoted? You quoted the part where it said 2 feet from the smoker was comparable to indoors, yet the part not quoted was that being 5-7 feet you were breathing normal air. If you were upwind, you could avoid the effects even from 2 feet away. Even with the wind blowing it towards you, taking 2 to 3 paces, and you avoid any and all ill effects of the smoke. Can you smell it? Yes, but odor isn't a harmful effect.

Regulations that say prohibit smoking in certain proximity to people is therefore understandable, but complete bans are unjustified. Complete outdoor bans are just trying to eliminate something people don't like. That's where it becomes a valid complaint that its a nanny state law.


September 16th, 2011, 4:04 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
njroar wrote:
Did you read the whole report you quoted? You quoted the part where it said 2 feet from the smoker was comparable to indoors, yet the part not quoted was that being 5-7 feet you were breathing normal air. If you were upwind, you could avoid the effects even from 2 feet away. Even with the wind blowing it towards you, taking 2 to 3 paces, and you avoid any and all ill effects of the smoke. Can you smell it? Yes, but odor isn't a harmful effect.

Regulations that say prohibit smoking in certain proximity to people is therefore understandable, but complete bans are unjustified. Complete outdoor bans are just trying to eliminate something people don't like. That's where it becomes a valid complaint that its a nanny state law.


Woohoo!!! Finally!!! Someone is looking at the data and making a reasonable claim!

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

Proud day! \:D/

Anyways, you are right. One person smoking the data showed that the distance needed to get real negative effects is much closer than someone would likely get in these situations. It also noted that a patio used for smoking with many smokers in a typical situation would then see enough smokers to make the area just a implactful to health as indoors, but once the smoking stopped it would disperse because there was nothing holding it there and nothing being produced.

This supports the idea that and individual smoker will not make an impact to those around them from a health standpoint and that in itself is likely not a good reason to ban it. In a beach, that likely is the real situation as people are not likely to congregate together but rather be spread apart.

But you bring up the other point, it's still annoying and if the society deems the annoyance as too much they have the right to not allow it. Nudity is not allowed, it is an annoyance. Too loud of music is not allowed, there is noise limitations as part fo zoning, it is only an annoyance. Heck, people here are complaining about turbines being "ugly" as a reason to not allow them... it's only an annoyance.

The funny thing is, people care about these annoyances when it effects them and their nanny state complaints seem to go away when it is something they support. If the public deems something an annoyance, they can ban it. I'm still FOR this law on the beach (at least the one in our little beach town) because it annoys me and most other people in the town. Unless it is protected by the constitution, the local gov't has rights to ban anything they want.

I contend that public smoking bans even outside still fall under the health reasons in most cases as smokers congregate to smoke most of the time. On beaches, not so much, but maybe for different reasons.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 16th, 2011, 4:16 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2828
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
But its different in different areas. In Cali, the public can put a measure on the ballot and vote on it. In NJ, they can't. Not sure about Michigan.

Annoyance isn't enough to ban anything for everyone. That's my major issue with the majority of liberals. If they don't like someone they want to remove it. If they like something, they want to force it on everyone. Its absolutes. I'm all for choice in everything. We have to allow women to play in men's sports if there's not a sport for them, so smoker's deserve the same rights as someone who doesn't smoke. If you want to remove smoking from areas, there has to be a smoker's section provided. Limiting access for a smoker is no different than limiting it for the handicapped. The only difference is your personal view. And yes, there's no comparison in a smoker and a handicapped person other than it being ok to limit access to one and not the other.

When I did smoke, you know when I got sick? Not from smoking itself, but having to go outside in the freezing weather. The limitations actually caused me a more consistent serious risk than the % based chance of actually smoking.


September 16th, 2011, 5:06 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
Toledo Oh had a great plan for smoking, create a REAL smoking area truely seperating smoking and non smoking in all resturaunts. What happened? The people revolted against it and they repealed it. Later Ohio passed an all encompassing ban all together and there has been no issue. Make sense? Not really...

But I was for that real seperation ban, made sense to me.

But the difference between your note on smoking and handicap (I'm not going to go of the rail like you and Pablo did, I get you point), is that the country has a right to anything they find annoying in public if they ban it all together for that reason and it is not protected by the constitution. Handicap is protected, gender is protected, breathing is protected, smoking it not. The society can ban that to private use over health concerns and annoyance and if they wanted to for health reasons ban it all together. Same thing as lot allowing glass bottles in playgrounds and beaches or fines for littering. THe society has the choice to do that, for almost any reason as long as it isn't against the consitution.

You can make that valid point ONLY if you get a smoking protection added to the constitution.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 16th, 2011, 5:56 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2828
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
steensn wrote:
Toledo Oh had a great plan for smoking, create a REAL smoking area truely seperating smoking and non smoking in all resturaunts. What happened? The people revolted against it and they repealed it. Later Ohio passed an all encompassing ban all together and there has been no issue. Make sense? Not really...

But I was for that real seperation ban, made sense to me.

But the difference between your note on smoking and handicap (I'm not going to go of the rail like you and Pablo did, I get you point), is that the country has a right to anything they find annoying in public if they ban it all together for that reason and it is not protected by the constitution. Handicap is protected, gender is protected, breathing is protected, smoking it not. The society can ban that to private use over health concerns and annoyance and if they wanted to for health reasons ban it all together. Same thing as lot allowing glass bottles in playgrounds and beaches or fines for littering. THe society has the choice to do that, for almost any reason as long as it isn't against the consitution.

You can make that valid point ONLY if you get a smoking protection added to the constitution.


Have you read the constitution lately? Or at all? The constitution and bill of rights doesn't give protections for certain things. It only lists the things the government CAN do. Anything not on that list falls to the states and the people. So they have no right to ban for health reasons than they do for personal reasons.

So the opposite is true. That's why nanny state laws are constantly challenged. Go buy a pocket constitution and bill of rights.


September 16th, 2011, 6:05 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
It doesn't? Because there is this little weird thing called the Bill of Rights (what the gov't can't can't do) and the rest of the amendments which enact protection from the gov't. Things like biased laws based on gender, race, etc telling the gov't what they can't do and even worded that way. It is a mix of a list of things of what the gov't can't do and what it can do... named as such... and worded as such.

And since we are talking about a STATE enacting a law I am not sure why you decide to go down this distraction since the constitution has given rights to people just as I said, protection for certain things. So if we are talking about the STATE gov't they have every right to ban things for ANY reason they want unless it goes against the federal constitution and what it protects. It can be for health, it can be for pure annoyance to the public.

In either case, your whole post is a distraction from the topic as the constition bestowed the right for the state to govern themselves as they see fit unless protected by the constitution... which smoking is not and equal protection for gender is. Either get bunch of smokers and others who don't care together and take over a state so public opinion keeps the the right to smoke anywhere you want alive and well or let what seems to be the clear public opinion that it is a health risk and a nuisance reign.

We llet states and municipalities gov'n nuisances out of the public place. If we agree with it, we don't say anything. If we don't agree, we complain about "rights." We are all hypocrits on this, but that is what allows us to know what public opinion is. If this forum was a gov't, smoking cigarettes and weed while flying an airplane would be legal. In most other locations you guys are in the minority... if you don't like it, ban together or get the constitution changed.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 16th, 2011, 6:55 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2828
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
steensn wrote:
It doesn't? Because there is this little weird thing called the Bill of Rights (what the gov't can't can't do) and the rest of the amendments which enact protection from the gov't. Things like biased laws based on gender, race, etc telling the gov't what they can't do and even worded that way. It is a mix of a list of things of what the gov't can't do and what it can do... named as such... and worded as such.

And since we are talking about a STATE enacting a law I am not sure why you decide to go down this distraction since the constitution has given rights to people just as I said, protection for certain things. So if we are talking about the STATE gov't they have every right to ban things for ANY reason they want unless it goes against the federal constitution and what it protects. It can be for health, it can be for pure annoyance to the public.

In either case, your whole post is a distraction from the topic as the constition bestowed the right for the state to govern themselves as they see fit unless protected by the constitution... which smoking is not and equal protection for gender is. Either get bunch of smokers and others who don't care together and take over a state so public opinion keeps the the right to smoke anywhere you want alive and well or let what seems to be the clear public opinion that it is a health risk and a nuisance reign.

We llet states and municipalities gov'n nuisances out of the public place. If we agree with it, we don't say anything. If we don't agree, we complain about "rights." We are all hypocrits on this, but that is what allows us to know what public opinion is. If this forum was a gov't, smoking cigarettes and weed while flying an airplane would be legal. In most other locations you guys are in the minority... if you don't like it, ban together or get the constitution changed.


Go read the constitution and bill of rights again. This based on gender, race, etc.. is all part of the civil rights bill, nothing to do with the constitution. The only gender and race involved in the constitution is the right to vote. As to the bolded, it is ONLY a list of what the government can do. The bill of rights is a short list of things that get presidence even over the rest of the constitution that also apply to every state. There is no though shalt not. That's the very reason we have a Supreme Court.

And my post isn't a distraction. I said eventually it will become an issue because a group of smokers is eventually going to sue and its going to be found as discrimination. The indoor bans have the valid complaint, but outdoors will be challenged. Its already been filed in NY with the Central Park ban on smoking. But these things take time. DC's gun ban lasted 30 years before it was overturned in the Supreme Court. Same with Chicago's.


September 16th, 2011, 8:02 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
njroar wrote:

Go read the constitution and bill of rights again. This based on gender, race, etc.. is all part of the civil rights bill, nothing to do with the constitution. The only gender and race involved in the constitution is the right to vote. As to the bolded, it is ONLY a list of what the government can do. The bill of rights is a short list of things that get presidence even over the rest of the constitution that also apply to every state. There is no though shalt not. That's the very reason we have a Supreme Court.

And my post isn't a distraction. I said eventually it will become an issue because a group of smokers is eventually going to sue and its going to be found as discrimination. The indoor bans have the valid complaint, but outdoors will be challenged. Its already been filed in NY with the Central Park ban on smoking. But these things take time. DC's gun ban lasted 30 years before it was overturned in the Supreme Court. Same with Chicago's.


I have zero understanding of what point you are trying to even argue here or what words you want to quibble over. There is no discrimination, or the hundred thousand other things that we ban in public places would have the same stupid logic you are making above. Their is no protection for smoking in public places, period. The state has full right to ban anything it wants in public places if it is a nuisance. End of story...

This whole tyrade over "what exactly the const. is to me" nonsense... just stop. It IS a distraction and completely dumb. The the summary of most of the amendment say "prohibits the gov't from..." means you're decision to mince words is absolutely a distraction from the point. This argument is STUPID njoar...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 17th, 2011, 11:45 am
Profile
NFL Team Captain

Joined: January 27th, 2005, 9:12 pm
Posts: 1610
Location: Midland, MI
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
Has anyone ever been stuck in traffic next to a deisel car on a hot summer day? How about that big puff of smoke from semis when they run up through gears. Even being being stopped by a gas staion you get the fimes.

I live about a mile from Dow Chemical's main plant in Midland. You would not believe them smell that come from there. We get a nice snow fall and within a few days it is covered with black soot.

How about playing on a ballfield that's about 300 yds from from a meat packing plant?

Yes I am a smoker, I have no problem not smoking in a reasturant, or being in a bar that has a outside smoking area. You haven't been able to smoke in a grocery store for years Public buildings are a nono. No problem.

But a beach?!!! Next it will be in your car or your own property!

How much time and Tax Payer dollars are going to be spent on this that could have been spent on jobs or roadwork(which is job as well)?

Did you know that every foodstamp benificery that recieved benefits in March also recieved $1.00 added to their cash acout. $1.00!!! For a governer that is looking for budjet cuts, wtf was that. All that will buy is a pop or a beer. And yes you can buy beer and smokes with EBT card!

How much money will the counties and state rake in from fines impossed on people for get caught smoking where they have a ban? This is a total bullshit move by a total idiot. :finger:


September 20th, 2011, 8:42 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Snyder calls for smoke-free beaches, etc
There is zero equivilency to a beach and next going on your property.

The trend is that all public places eventually will be no smoking, see the word public.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 20th, 2011, 9:50 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.