Smoking banned in private houses in San Franscisco

1235

Comments

  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    jeffbr wrote:
    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.
    Thank you for clarifying.
    "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!!!
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.



    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.

    well, if we're going to say the government has the duty and the right to regulate substances deemed dangerous (drugs) then i have to say it makes no sense why cigarettes are legal and marijuana is not. personally, id rather see them all legal, but if we're going to support this war on drugs and government prohibition, exempting tobacco makes no sense.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    farfromglorified wrote:
    My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.



    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.

    The federal Govt could start to "go after" them by discontinuing any subsidizing.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    The federal Govt could start to "go after" them by discontinuing any subsidizing.

    I agree with that but for completely different reasons.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    The federal Govt could start to "go after" them by discontinuing any subsidizing.

    I doubt that's what the poster implied, but I'd certainly be 100% behind that. The fact remains, however, that the costs of government involvement in tobacco trade is far more costly to them than the beneft of subsidies.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    well, if we're going to say the government has the duty and the right to regulate substances deemed dangerous (drugs) then i have to say it makes no sense why cigarettes are legal and marijuana is not.

    Hehe..."we" are not going to say that. You might, but I certainly would not.

    However, I agree with your point. The line between cigarettes and marijuana, in that context, is ridiculous. The only reason for it is history.
    personally, id rather see them all legal, but if we're going to support this war on drugs and government prohibition, exempting tobacco makes no sense.

    Exempting tobacco is the only thing left that makes sense. The rest should follow.
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    surferdude wrote:
    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.

    you didn't allow anything. you don't live in nyc.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe..."we" are not going to say that. You might, but I certainly would not.

    However, I agree with your point. The line between cigarettes and marijuana, in that context, is ridiculous. The only reason for it is history.



    Exempting tobacco is the only thing left that makes sense. The rest should follow.

    i wouldnt say that, just posing it as the premise. cos it seems clear the country has already sanctioned such behavior. i thought i made my stance clear in the next sentence.
  • ThumbingMyWay32
    ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    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????

    Taxes.
    "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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    i wouldnt say that, just posing it as the premise. cos it seems clear the country has already sanctioned such behavior. i thought i made my stance clear in the next sentence.

    Fair enough. And I agree with the above.

    However, the country has already sanctioned governmental profit from that behavior as well. And that will, in most places, override the above.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    jeffbr wrote:
    No difference at all.
    While I'm somewhat opposed to banning smoking in bars, there is a difference. You don't live in a bar. You don't sleep in a bar. You don't raise your family in a bar.

    Well, not generally, anyway.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    While I'm somewhat opposed to banning smoking in bars, there is a difference. You don't live in a bar. You don't sleep in a bar. You don't raise your family in a bar.

    Well, not generally, anyway.

    I was going to take issue with this post, but the last sentence made me laugh. Nice post RD.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    RainDog wrote:
    While I'm somewhat opposed to banning smoking in bars, there is a difference. You don't live in a bar. You don't sleep in a bar. You don't raise your family in a bar.

    Well, not generally, anyway.
    They're getting away with banning it in bars because they are a workplace.

    Just wait ... pretty soon you won't be able to hire plumbers or painters or housekeepers or get the cable guy to come out if you're a smoker.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.



    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.

    what most of you aren't realizing is that the suppliers of tobacco are poor farmers. so many that the government subsidises and suppliments their income. their farms are so small that the only products they can grow and make a profit are tobacco and pot. i know several that grow pot to make ends meet and i'm sure there's many more.

    if you recall; the government already went after the tobacco companies. they received large fines and sanctions that will continue for many years to come.
  • yield2me
    yield2me Posts: 1,291
    Is California even part of the US anymore? Seems like they are less and less
    “May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
  • Dirty Mosquito
    Dirty Mosquito Chicago Posts: 621
    Pardon my language but this is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard. We are loosing our freedoms faster than I can count to ten....it's ridiculous.

    What's next, charging us for the air we breathe?? Mark my words this will happen someday, probably sooner than we think.
    Alpine Valley 06-13-99 [EV-Solo]
    Alpine Valley 10-8-00 (The Icebowl)
    Chicago 05-16-06, 05-17-06
    Lollapalooza 08-05-07
    Chicago 08-22-08 [EV Solo]
    Chicago 08-23-09, 08-24-09
    Chicago 06-28-11, 06-29-11 [EV Solo]
    PJ20 Alpine Valley 09-03-11, 09-04-11
    Wrigley Field 07-19-13
    Wrigley Field 08-20-16, 08-22-16
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    so the police should ignore violent crimes and stake out peoples houses looking for signs of tobacco use? i didn't realize san francisco was so crime free that the police have nothing to do.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    what most of you aren't realizing is that the suppliers of tobacco are poor farmers. so many that the government subsidises and suppliments their income. their farms are so small that the only products they can grow and make a profit are tobacco and pot. i know several that grow pot to make ends meet and i'm sure there's many more.

    I do realize that. Not sure what your point is here, however.
    if you recall; the government already went after the tobacco companies. they received large fines and sanctions that will continue for many years to come.

    Certainly.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    so the police should ignore violent crimes and stake out peoples houses looking for signs of tobacco use?

    Of course not.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    DinghyDog wrote:
    i agree, smoking should be totally banned outright, the sooner the better. filthy friggin habit. i want my daughter to grow up in a world where ciggarettes were one of those stupid things humans did in ancient history.

    car exhaust causes more medical problems than second hand smoke. not only do you breath it in; what excapes falls down upon you as sulfuric acid (acid rain) destroying the trees that purify the air you breathe.
    so you want to protect your daughter from one poison but you feed her a more potent one. somehow that doesn't make sense.

Categories