Smoking banned in private houses in San Franscisco

HANKTHELANKHANKTHELANK Posts: 89
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/300107smokingfascism.htm


Agree or disagree that government should be able to control this action in our own homes?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/300107smokingfascism.html


    Agree or disagree that government should be able to control this action in our own homes?


    ha ha, it is completely impossible to police. It's government making laws for the sake of government.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/300107smokingfascism.htm


    Agree or disagree that government should be able to control this action in our own homes?


    That is ridiculous. Why the hell do we constantly let our government intrude into our homes. I hope that this legislation does not pass.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    it's not even in effect. It's a proposed ordinance.

    I don't think the gov't should regulate smoking inside someones house. I could ses where they could have a case in apts or townhomes, since the smoke can get into other units etc and effect other people's belongings or quality of life, but to outlaw it in your own home is a litte over the top and once again the gov't doing something that really doesn't matter to make itself look productive.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    ha ha, it is completely impossible to police. It's government making laws for the sake of government.

    Exactly. I mean is this for real. Have we completely handed over the governing of our daily lives and affairs over to the government.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • What a joke, that lie Pacomc79 pointed out that in unenforceable.

    I'm ok with smoking being banned in public places, and if landlords don't want to rent to smokers, but banning it in the house that you own is a joke.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    chopitdown wrote:
    it's not even in effect. It's a proposed ordinance.

    I don't think the gov't should regulate smoking inside someones house. I could ses where they could have a case in apts or townhomes, since the smoke can get into other units etc and effect other people's belongings or quality of life, but to outlaw it in your own home is a litte over the top and once again the gov't doing something that really doesn't matter to make itself look productive.
    It should be up to the owners of the apartment building, or to the condo owner's association, whether to allow smoking in all, part or none of their buildings. The government is overstepping their bounds.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    hippiemom wrote:
    It should be up to the owners of the apartment building, or to the condo owner's association, whether to allow smoking in all, part or none of their buildings. The government is overstepping their bounds.

    i agree, i should have made it a bit more clear.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Having your landlord or coop board ban smoking in the building is one thing. It is their property so they have the right to implement the rule, but for any level of government to tell people that they can't partake in a legal activity in their own home is fucking ridiculous.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    What is next?????? 2.356 worth of alcohol drinks, so you stay below the limit even when drinking in the privacy of your own home. :)
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/300107smokingfascism.htm


    Agree or disagree that government should be able to control this action in our own homes?

    why not? they already do... no marijuana, no spanking, no sodomy. government intrusion into the home is nothing new.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    why not? they already do... no marijuana, no spanking, no sodomy. government intrusion into the home is nothing new.

    Unfortunately you are correct, it is nothing new. But that doesn't mean we should sit back and allow it. Hippimom and Mammasan have it exactly right.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    mammasan wrote:
    Having your landlord or coop board ban smoking in the building is one thing. It is their property so they have the right to implement the rule, but for any level of government to tell people that they can't partake in a legal activity in their own home is fucking ridiculous.
    Its only a legal activity now because they havent passed the ordinance yet. Once passed, that once legal activity is now punishable by whatever means the government decides to put in this ordinance.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    1970RR wrote:
    Its only a legal activity now because they havent passed the ordinance yet. Once passed, that once legal activity is now punishable by whatever means the government decides to put in this ordinance.


    What I meant by legal activity is that smoking tobacco is not illegal. It is a legal activity that should be allowed in the privacy of your own home.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jeffbr wrote:
    Unfortunately you are correct, it is nothing new. But that doesn't mean we should sit back and allow it. Hippimom and Mammasan have it exactly right.

    yet weren't you just agreeing that spanking should be outlawed in the other thread?
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    mammasan wrote:
    What I meant by legal activity is that smoking tobacco is not illegal. It is a legal activity that should be allowed in the privacy of your own home.

    ill admit, im kinda curious where they think smoking would or could be done if this law passes? i dont see why they dont just up and ban the stuff at this point. sounds to me, though, like this is a case of 1) a politician trying to score some brownie points with a measure that he knows will never pass or be enforced or 2) a bunch of temperance crusaders who managed to get enough signatures to get their nonsense ideas on the ballot even if it doesn't stand a chance of passing.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 30,166
    "oh wait a minute let me make sure that the police is not outside the house before we have sex " this is getting scary ....
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    "oh wait a minute let me make sure that the police is not outside the house before we have sex " this is getting scary ....

    Remember, if you smoke after sex you're doing it too fast.” Woody Allen
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    yet weren't you just agreeing that spanking should be outlawed in the other thread?

    Where? I was stating spanking is wrongheaded. I don't believe you will find me calling for legislation.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jeffbr wrote:
    Where? I was stating spanking is wrongheaded. I don't believe you will find me calling for legislation.

    that's reassuring.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    1970RR wrote:
    Its only a legal activity now because they havent passed the ordinance yet. Once passed, that once legal activity is now punishable by whatever means the government decides to put in this ordinance.

    The people who like banning smoking like the tax revenue too much to make selling the product illegal. This, to them, would be increased revenue generated by tickets handed out for this heinous crime.
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    zstillings wrote:
    The people who like banning smoking like the tax revenue too much to make selling the product illegal. This, to them, would be increased revenue generated by tickets handed out for this heinous crime.
    But remember, its for the children!
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    i think it's wonderful the government is trying to intrude using pollution and health reasons. it strenghtens my upcoming suit against the oil companies.
    as far as legislation; it's unconstitutional. unless the federal government bans tobacco completely; there's too many "privacy" precidents in place.
  • http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/300107smokingfascism.htm


    Agree or disagree that government should be able to control this action in our own homes?

    Everyone here I hope knows that San Francisco is extremely liberal. Everyone in the local governments are extremely liberal.

    This could be one of the largest crimes against liberty this country has ever seen and I guarantee no one on this forum will make a big deal out of it.

    The arguement will be that "they're just looking out for our health," instead of it being an invasion of privacy. Yet, when the same people talk about wiretaps, it's about little Bushy sitting at his desk listening and giggling at millions of random American's conversations, instead of diverting and suppressing terrorist activity.

    Anyone with real logic, speak up.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Everyone here I hope knows that San Francisco is extremely liberal. Everyone in the local governments are extremely liberal.

    This could be one of the largest crimes against liberty this country has ever seen and I guarantee no one on this forum will make a big deal out of it.

    The arguement will be that "they're just looking out for our health," instead of it being an invasion of privacy. Yet, when the same people talk about wiretaps, it's about little Bushy sitting at his desk listening and giggling at millions of random American's conversations, instead of diverting and suppressing terrorist activity.

    Anyone with real logic, speak up.
    I can't think of a single person on this board, liberal or conservative, who would support this. The liberals in this thread, myself included, are opposed.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • hippiemom wrote:
    I can't think of a single person on this board, liberal or conservative, who would support this. The liberals in this thread, myself included, are opposed.


    I posted an article awhile ago that told the story of a dude getting fired about smoking tobacco in his own home and didnt support that. So I'm definitely not going to support this.
  • hippiemom wrote:
    I can't think of a single person on this board, liberal or conservative, who would support this. The liberals in this thread, myself included, are opposed.


    Onelongsong seems to think it's a marvelous idea, but the only problem being that the stupid little Constitution gets in the way. You know, that silly "privacy" baggage it carries with it.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • ill admit, im kinda curious where they think smoking would or could be done if this law passes? i dont see why they dont just up and ban the stuff at this point. sounds to me, though, like this is a case of 1) a politician trying to score some brownie points with a measure that he knows will never pass or be enforced or 2) a bunch of temperance crusaders who managed to get enough signatures to get their nonsense ideas on the ballot even if it doesn't stand a chance of passing.

    That's an easy one. Why would the government ban something that they're able to tax the hell out of you for? Taxing the hell out of people with an addiction doesn't sound very compassionate to me... But after all, they're looking out for your health right?

    Any normal person should easily understand that the government's stance on tobacco is absurd.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • I'm actually surprised more people havent supported it. Criminals are held in higher regard than smokers around here.
  • I'm actually surprised more people havent supported it. Criminals are held in higher regard than smokers around here.


    What ever happend to protecting culture? This country was built on the back of the tobacco leaf.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Onelongsong seems to think it's a marvelous idea, but the only problem being that the stupid little Constitution gets in the way. You know, that silly "privacy" baggage it carries with it.
    Onelongsong is HARDLY a liberal, and I'm pretty damn sure he doesn't really support it anyway.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Sign In or Register to comment.