Watch all-holier-than-thou nonsmokers rationalize this......

WaveRyder

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/02/ ... own-homes/

JOEJOEJOE

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

WaveRyder

there's one

oona left

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

What about when someone starts up their Hummer and the exhaust is blown in the direction of a neighbor's home? What is the law doing about those victims of air pollution?

This whole thing is just silly.

JOEJOEJOE

oona left wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

What about when someone starts up their Hummer and the exhaust is blown in the direction of a neighbor's home? What is the law doing about those victims of air pollution?

This whole thing is just silly.

If people were a little more conscientious, such laws wouldn't have to be considered.

WaveRyder

slowly heat the water till its boiling
and people are standing there with no property rights left

Kevinman

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

Really? Time to buy a bubble.

WaveRyder

this is why democracies fail.......

JOEJOEJOE

Kevinman wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

Really? Time to buy a bubble.

nope...time for people to realize how their actions affect other people.

WaveRyder

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Kevinman wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

Really? Time to buy a bubble.

nope...time for people to realize how their actions affect other people.

yeah,,,,when Ed smokes onstage at Alpine Valley or wherever, I get so pissed off. Doesnt he know he's killing people?

Kevinman

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Kevinman wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

Really? Time to buy a bubble.

nope...time for people to realize how their actions affect other people.

Nope it's 6pm.

JOEJOEJOE

nope...time for people to realize how their actions affect other people.[/quote]


yeah,,,,when Ed smokes onstage at Alpine Valley or wherever, I get so pissed off. Doesnt he know he's killing people?[/quote]


That isn't the same as having to endure second hand smoke on your own property at home.

green mountain man

oona left wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

What about when someone starts up their Hummer and the exhaust is blown in the direction of a neighbor's home? What is the law doing about those victims of air pollution?

This whole thing is just silly.

There are some idling laws sprouting up.What is next, who knows. Imagine being a toll booth attendant

oona left

green mountain man wrote:

oona left wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

What about when someone starts up their Hummer and the exhaust is blown in the direction of a neighbor's home? What is the law doing about those victims of air pollution?

This whole thing is just silly.

There are some idling laws sprouting up.What is next, who knows. Imagine being a toll booth attendant

I know!! They could pass a law making it illegal to DRIVE through the toll booths. People will be required to turn off the engine before the booth, put the car in neutral, and push it until they are passed the booth.

Only after the vehicle is fifteen feet* away from the booth can the engine be restarted (*distance may vary depending on wind conditions).

inmytree

problem solved...

hedonist

I smoke, however I can see Joe's point too...consideration.

Surely there has to be a middleground though I'm not sure exactly what it would be in this type of situation...if the wind vane faces this way, light up?

I just don't know.

(although holier-than-thou's come in all forms)

brianlux

What about the holier-than-thou-ex-smokers?

Davis tried this but it didn't fly there. If it didn't pass in Davis, it won't pass in Rocklin.

hedonist

brianlux wrote:

What about the holier-than-thou-ex-smokers?

Agreed! I just think they're all around...I've seen it go both ways.

brianlux

hedonist wrote:

brianlux wrote:

What about the holier-than-thou-ex-smokers?

Agreed! I just think they're all around...I've seen it go both ways.

There's no worse a smoking critic than an ex-smoker. I know, I am one and I used to be the worst smoking critic but then about 10 years after quitting I had a dream and I was taking a drag on a Winston and woke had an intense craving for a cigarette. Now I go after people wearing heavy perfume and cologne !

green mountain man

Regarding second hand smoke , there are many smokers who deny the effects of their errors and transfer
illogical sentiments towards evolutionary processes.

Smellyman

I would much rather ban neighbor kids.....

your move now

had an interesting discussion last night regarding the banning of smoking.
Was more related to the idea that has been raised that illness caused by smoking should not be covered by Medicare for smokers which is very popular in parts of Aus atm, mostly because people think their taxes shouldn't pay for people who are poisoning themselves voluntarily to be treated.

What isn't well known is that the taxes on cigarettes bring in more money than medicare costs us, so really the smokers are paying for other illnesses and whatever health care issues non smokers and smokers alike have... interesting to see what those who want us cut from the scheme would say to rationalize their position if they were aware of this. But of course the gov'ment could never officially release this info as it would show how much they actually love smoking

Paul Andrews

Actually, the taxes on cigarettes doesn't come close to covering what Australian medicare spends in smoking related health care. This has been well documented.

Having said that, if we are to look at the issue of healthcare, obesity, high risk sports, alcohol and other substances all cost medicare and, in turn, our taxes. I think it would be hard to find anyone in the community whose lifestyle choices do not impact on the eventual cost of their healthcare. So this being the case, I am not for denying health care to anyone, irregardless of their lifestyle choices. We're a community and our underlying compassion and care of one another is important.

I don't mind the idea of a weighted contribution system though and you will find the private healthcare providers do this, I don't mind the medicare system doing the same. I was knocked back for an income protection insurance policy because I admitted to using pot in the previous 12 months - and I'm a non smoker.

The OPs original issue is one of smokers needing to respect the rights of those around them. The same as drink driving is illegal because of the damage you do to innocent parties, I agree, second hand smoke and the inability of certain smokers to understand that they do no have the right to pollute others' clean air is what does their cause the greatest harm. I am all for smokers rights - especially those I know who make an effort to minimise the harm to non smokers.

It's all about respect - from both sides.

Godfather.

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Kevinman wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

Really? Time to buy a bubble.

nope...time for people to realize how their actions affect other people.

My same argument on drug legallization..can we call it a tie ?

Godfather.

USARAY

people don't respect each other it seems no matter how respectful a smoker is
it's not enough for non smokers they want no smoke period we need smoking only establishments
to balance the bans so smokers can enjoy an evening out while having smoke with
their friends

Paul Andrews

squirt wrote:

people don't respect each other it seems no matter how respectful a smoker is
it's not enough for non smokers they want no smoke period we need smoking only establishments
to balance the bans so smokers can enjoy an evening out while having smoke with
their friends

It will be almost impossible to insure the health related effects to workers in these places. It is a workplace safety issue.

oona left

your move now wrote:

had an interesting discussion last night regarding the banning of smoking.
Was more related to the idea that has been raised that illness caused by smoking should not be covered by Medicare for smokers which is very popular in parts of Aus atm, mostly because people think their taxes shouldn't pay for people who are poisoning themselves voluntarily to be treated.

What isn't well known is that the taxes on cigarettes bring in more money than medicare costs us, so really the smokers are paying for other illnesses and whatever health care issues non smokers and smokers alike have... interesting to see what those who want us cut from the scheme would say to rationalize their position if they were aware of this. But of course the gov'ment could never officially release this info as it would show how much they actually love smoking

Interesting. I live outside Chicago. In the suburbs, I can get a pack of cigarettes for $4.96, which includes tax. In the city, a single pack can cost well over $9.00. When the state needs more revenue, it seems the go after the current scapegoats first: those awful smokers.

When are we going to start holding people accountable for their actions so far as diet is concerned? Heart disease is a leading cause of death, and can be directly related to diet. If someone eats fast food more than four times a week for years, would anyone consider deny them medical care for related illnesses because they had an opportunity to avoid them but chose not to?

green mountain man

oona left wrote:

your move now wrote:

had an interesting discussion last night regarding the banning of smoking.
Was more related to the idea that has been raised that illness caused by smoking should not be covered by Medicare for smokers which is very popular in parts of Aus atm, mostly because people think their taxes shouldn't pay for people who are poisoning themselves voluntarily to be treated.

What isn't well known is that the taxes on cigarettes bring in more money than medicare costs us, so really the smokers are paying for other illnesses and whatever health care issues non smokers and smokers alike have... interesting to see what those who want us cut from the scheme would say to rationalize their position if they were aware of this. But of course the gov'ment could never officially release this info as it would show how much they actually love smoking

Interesting. I live outside Chicago. In the suburbs, I can get a pack of cigarettes for $4.96, which includes tax. In the city, a single pack can cost well over $9.00. When the state needs more revenue, it seems the go after the current scapegoats first: those awful smokers.

When are we going to start holding people accountable for their actions so far as diet is concerned? Heart disease is a leading cause of death, and can be directly related to diet. If someone eats fast food more than four times a week for years, would anyone consider deny them medical care for related illnesses because they had an opportunity to avoid them but chose not to?

Yes , the malnourished are next. Then force people to become teetotalers. RELEASE THE HOUNDS !

Godfather.

green mountain man wrote:

oona left wrote:

your move now wrote:

had an interesting discussion last night regarding the banning of smoking.
Was more related to the idea that has been raised that illness caused by smoking should not be covered by Medicare for smokers which is very popular in parts of Aus atm, mostly because people think their taxes shouldn't pay for people who are poisoning themselves voluntarily to be treated.

What isn't well known is that the taxes on cigarettes bring in more money than medicare costs us, so really the smokers are paying for other illnesses and whatever health care issues non smokers and smokers alike have... interesting to see what those who want us cut from the scheme would say to rationalize their position if they were aware of this. But of course the gov'ment could never officially release this info as it would show how much they actually love smoking

Interesting. I live outside Chicago. In the suburbs, I can get a pack of cigarettes for $4.96, which includes tax. In the city, a single pack can cost well over $9.00. When the state needs more revenue, it seems the go after the current scapegoats first: those awful smokers.

When are we going to start holding people accountable for their actions so far as diet is concerned? Heart disease is a leading cause of death, and can be directly related to diet. If someone eats fast food more than four times a week for years, would anyone consider deny them medical care for related illnesses because they had an opportunity to avoid them but chose not to?

Yes , the malnourished are next. Then force people to become teetotalers. RELEASE THE HOUNDS !

Godfather.

USARAY

Paul Andrews wrote:

squirt wrote:

people don't respect each other it seems no matter how respectful a smoker is
it's not enough for non smokers they want no smoke period we need smoking only establishments
to balance the bans so smokers can enjoy an evening out while having smoke with
their friends

It will be almost impossible to insure the health related effects to workers in these places. It is a workplace safety issue.

the workers would be smokers
smokers gotta stand up for the freedom to smoke in environments established for them

justam

I think laws like this are too restrictive! Why deny the smoker's rights like this?

If these people are worried about their children, bring them inside when the neighbor is outside smoking. It can't be that difficult to organize, the smokers are not going to be outside CONSTANTLY. :shock: :P