Smoking banned in private houses in San Franscisco

1246

Comments

  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehehehehe.........

    The uproar here surprises me.

    Why?
    Thankfully, it will be awhile before this passes. Once state-funded health care costs completely take over government budgets, however, this is going to happen.

    If it happens how will they ever police this?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    THC wrote:
    how about the gov't does FU**ING this.....

    Hold the fricken cigarette companies responsible for selling a product that has been proved to be dangerous...and lethal. The CEO's were caught LYING to CONGRESS....yet EVERY-thing they've ever done...only penalizes those people who smoke (the extra taxes...the you can't smoke here and there laws).


    why doesn't the gov't grow some balls...and actually go after the tobacco companies????


    There you go. Go after the source. Why not go after the source opposed to creating laws that limit people's freedoms? The road to hell is paved with good intentions................
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    Why?

    Because people have the opposite opinions when the very same government pushes the very same rules on others and their properties.
    If it happens how will they ever police this?

    The same way they police drug use in the home, of course.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    THC wrote:
    why doesn't the gov't grow some balls...and actually go after the tobacco companies????

    Hehehehe....this is too funny.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    There you go. Go after the source. Why not go after the source opposed to creating laws that limit people's freedoms? The road to hell is paved with good intentions................

    Umm...the source are people too baraka. Do their freedoms not count?
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because people have the opposite opinions when the very same government pushes the very same rules on others and their properties.

    You lost me here.
    The same way they police drug use in the home, of course.

    I don't live in the States but would that be 'not at all'?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The same way they police drug use in the home, of course.
    They would have too, it sure seems that tobacco meets this definition:

    Schedule I drugs
    Findings required:

    (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
    (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
    (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    You lost me here.

    Start a thread about banning smoking in bars or businesses -- you'll see the opposite opinions when the ban wouldn't apply to someplace these people own.
    I don't live in the States but would that be 'not at all'?

    Home drug use is certainly policed here in the States. Everyday in this country people are arrested and imprisoned for having possession of drugs in their homes or using drugs in their homes.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Start a thread about banning smoking in bars or businesses -- you'll see the opposite opinions when the ban wouldn't apply to someplace these people own.

    Touché. Although, you have to admit there's a difference.
    Home drug use is certainly policed here in the States. Everyday in this country people are arrested and imprisoned for having possession of drugs in their homes or using drugs in their homes.

    But these are just the dealers, right? Who have great quantities of drugs ready to be sold? Or also guys who just have small quantities, one plant?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Start a thread about banning smoking in bars or businesses -- you'll see the opposite opinions when the ban wouldn't apply to someplace these people own.



    Home drug use is certainly policed here in the States. Everyday in this country people are arrested and imprisoned for having possession of drugs in their homes or using drugs in their homes.
    Sometimes they are killed, even without possessing or using drugs:
    http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    Touché. Although, you have to admit there's a difference.

    No, there isn't.
    But these are just the dealers, right? Who have great quantities of drugs ready to be sold? Or also guys who just have small quantities, one plant?

    The laws apply to all. Enforcement is certainly weighted towards dealing, but simple using or possession is also enforced every day in this nation.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Collin wrote:
    Touché. Although, you have to admit there's a difference.
    I agree with you that there is a difference. In the underlying logic, looking at it neutrally, there may not be, but when assessing all the variables, there certainly is, imo.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Umm...the source are people too baraka. Do their freedoms not count?


    Nice try, ffg, but I think you understood my statement. When I say go after the source, I'm mean the tobacco companies. And yes, I do realize smoking is a choice and I understand how hard it is to quit. I smoked for years. But, instead of making laws that infringe on people's rights in their own home, how about people stop feeding the tobacco companies by not buying their products. Hard challenge I know. You up for that,ffg?
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, there isn't.

    I guess, you are right.
    The laws apply to all. Enforcement is certainly weighted towards dealing, but simple using or possession is also enforced every day in this nation.

    Bummer.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Collin wrote:
    Although, you have to admit there's a difference.

    No difference at all. These are people, humans, citizens of the United States. They own homes. They own businesses. We are outraged when the gov't does something to limit that person's rights when it comes to their home and their behavior in their home, yet many of those same people applaud government coercion when it comes to that person's business. Why?
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, there isn't.



    The laws apply to all. Enforcement is certainly weighted towards dealing, but simple using or possession is also enforced every day in this nation.

    yeah, but they've got to catch you. i dont think that happens very often. if you're sitting in your apt shooting heroin and nobody knows, you're not gonna get in trouble. i dont see many smokers getting caught breaking this law. it's stupid.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    jeffbr wrote:
    No difference at all. These are people, humans, citizens of the United States. They own homes. They own businesses. We are outraged when the gov't does something to limit that person's rights when it comes to their home and their behavior in their home, yet many of those same people applaud government coercion when it comes to that person's business. Why?
    I understand that there are similarities, and yet to discount the differences and say "no differences" seems a little unreasonable. Are you really saying you are ignoring the differences?

    You don't see a difference between owning a home and owning a business? Right there we have two very different dynamics, including different purposes and intents. Do you propose we collapse and deny those differences to focus on the similarities in an unrealistic vaccum?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    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.
    Big picture how is this any different than NYC banning trans fat in public? We allowed government to oversteptheir bounds on trans fats, now they're overstepping bounds on smoking. At least the government's consistent.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    angelica wrote:
    I understand that there are similarities, and yet to discount the differences and say "no differences" seems a little unreasonable. Are you really saying you are ignoring the differences?

    You don't see a difference between owning a home and owning a business? Right there we have two very different dynamics, including different purposes and intents. Do you propose we collapse and deny those differences to focus on the similarities in an unrealistic vaccum?

    I'm suggesting that both are property of sovereign individuals. To many (likely non-business owners) here "business" is some big, evil entity. The reality is that "business" is people.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    Nice try, ffg, but I think you understood my statement. When I say go after the source, I'm mean the tobacco companies.

    My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.
    And yes, I do realize smoking is a choice and I understand how hard it is to quit. I smoked for years. But, instead of making laws that infringe on people's rights in their own home, how about people stop feeding the tobacco companies by not buying their products. Hard challenge I know. You up for that,ffg?

    If all you're proposing here is a boycott, then I certainly respect anyone's right to not buy the products made by tobacco companies. However, the original poster to whom I replied was looking for the government to "go after" tobacco companies.

Categories