Kansas City Bans Smoking In Your Own Home If You're Poor
- Thread starter simnettpratt
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Outstanding tarzan my bro; we agree. Way too many infringing laws, that politicians generally exempt themselves from. Good folks, you guys smoke up and prosper, and I hope you can get out of poverty. To hell with the career welfarists. Get a fucking job, work hard, show up early and stay late and pay it forward when you're on your feet.
No one here wants to support a class of professional victims. I just want to point out that most of the people receiving government assistance don't fall into that category. I also strong ly disagree that even those who are mooching off the system are the root of our problems or are bleeding our country dry. We give far more public assistance to billionaires than we give to welfare queens.heck, if you completely shut down ALL the federal governments programs for the poor (welfare,section 8 housing) you wouldn't end up reducing the federal budget by more than say one percent (I doubt it would be even that high but I'm willing to round up for brevity's sake). The only one of those programs that really costs enough for the average taxpayer to even feel is Medicare, but the majority of people on that program are children and the mentally ill (I'm going to assume that no one here feels that a ten year old girl should be forced to work full time to cover her asthma meds). The whole idea that there is some huge art of shiftless, lazy bums sucking taxpayers dry is complete bull crap. It's a lie. One propagated by politicians who figured out its a great hot button issue and know that most of their constituents will never bother to turn off the tv and actually spend time with their neighbors who live in assisted living to see for themselves who lives there. If you want to see where most of the federal budget goes, it is to the military and to support those who are 65 or older, almost all of whom worked their whole lives and would starve to death because they are now on a fixed income.
The continued encroachment of government into our lives is a far more dangerous thing than welfare cheating.
This is a problem we can solve by voting with our heads on straight. Just listen to the candidates. Identify the one who is most pro-regulation and then vote for the other person. Do not let the smoothness of his/her palaver mislead you. Even if you like or are okay with what they are proposing don't vote for them. That person is our enemy and must be defeated.
This is a problem we can solve by voting with our heads on straight. Just listen to the candidates. Identify the one who is most pro-regulation and then vote for the other person. Do not let the smoothness of his/her palaver mislead you. Even if you like or are okay with what they are proposing don't vote for them. That person is our enemy and must be defeated.
Glad in live in England! We may not be the Land of the Free but they'd never tell folk they couldn't smoke in their own home.
Andy
Andy
An interesting approach, but of course, there are good regulations and bad regulations. Voting against regulations generally without evaluating the regulation in question seems non-sensical. For example, should we have no competition laws or consumer protection laws?
That said, I will vote for the first guy who wants to eliminate laws against speeding. That is just government interference with my Hemi any way you slice it.
One should realize that not everyone who is poor is lazy. Someone who works 50 hours per week earning the prevailing US minimum wage would be poor.
Moreover, many of us don't realize that poverty could strike us or our family members in a heartbeat. I recall the thread from a week or so back about a well know pipe artisan who had become ill and has not been able to work. He is very close to losing his home.
We seem to want to dictate to - nay, even punish - those who are poor, perhaps because we see it is something they were responsible for. Sometimes they are responsible, but often they are just the victims of bad situations.
Moreover, many of us don't realize that poverty could strike us or our family members in a heartbeat. I recall the thread from a week or so back about a well know pipe artisan who had become ill and has not been able to work. He is very close to losing his home.
We seem to want to dictate to - nay, even punish - those who are poor, perhaps because we see it is something they were responsible for. Sometimes they are responsible, but often they are just the victims of bad situations.
Discrimination is discrimination - rich, average, or poor.
While I would personally question the decision to buy tobacco, booze, and snacks on a limited income, bad judgement isn't just for the poor. The government displays it every day.
While I would personally question the decision to buy tobacco, booze, and snacks on a limited income, bad judgement isn't just for the poor. The government displays it every day.
That my friend, is a fact.
@plateau: The government is not responsible with it's money? The hell you say!
Anyone remember the Valujet 592 crash in the Florida Everglades in 1996? Critter 592, they had a fire and crashed in the middle of alligator swamps. All 110 people died. After this, the FAA went to a new circular reporting system, where this guy reported to that guy, then to the other guy and so on back to the first guy. It was called ATOS, Air Transportation Oversight System, and it was designed to make them more defensible in court.
My company won the contract to train them how to use ATOS, and I was one of the trainers. One of the many, many utter-lack-of-common-sense things we saw was, the FAA inspectors would fly in fifty at a time to stay in this Holiday Inn in Dallas, I believe there were maybe 500 total.
Instead of asking the Holiday Inn how much that would cost, the FAA proposed the deal and just said, 'How about we pay you a million dollars?'. WAY more than that would have cost. The Holiday Inn was like, er, OK. They didn't get suites or any special treatment whatsoever.
I agree one shouldn't live beyond one's means, but like you said, the government displays it every day.
"your own government subsidized home" ... the key phrase here is government (Taxpayer) subsidized home ... IF a person needs MY money to live and or eat, he/she should NOT spend MY money on luxuries.
The working poor taking care of themselves is a different issue. If not spending taxpayer dollars, they should be able to buy anything they want.
With government assistance should come restrictions, you are spending other peoples hard earned money.
The working poor taking care of themselves is a different issue. If not spending taxpayer dollars, they should be able to buy anything they want.
With government assistance should come restrictions, you are spending other peoples hard earned money.
Number6 - let me get this straight. You feel the elderly, the disabled, poor vets, etc., shouldnt be allowed to spend money on luxuries? You truly feel a 70 year old man or a paraplegic should be forbidden from smoking his pipe or drinking beer ever again becauee they now draw social security or some other entitlement program? He should just resign himself to the notion that he will never again, for the rest of his life, be allowed to purchase something that brings him enjoyment with his government checks? You feel that some ex Marine(or cop or firefighter) who spent their life protecting you should be forbidden everything but necessities, despite the fact they might well be on public assistance because they got maimed protecting you? Wow. Im pretty well speechless.
LOL Perique that technically may be true and it's a safety issue - an extension of the mobile phone ban
Trailboss you can't imagine the rage that caused. One of the reasons guns are illegal (unfortunately) is to stop civilians opening fire on one another and having a far higher death rate than we do. While I agree that shooting those guys would be too good for them and it would have been great if a bystander could have shot them there and then, we very rarely have nutters opening fire in schools and at random on the streets. That has to be good, too.
Andy
Trailboss you can't imagine the rage that caused. One of the reasons guns are illegal (unfortunately) is to stop civilians opening fire on one another and having a far higher death rate than we do. While I agree that shooting those guys would be too good for them and it would have been great if a bystander could have shot them there and then, we very rarely have nutters opening fire in schools and at random on the streets. That has to be good, too.
Andy
Sorry Perique - also, that law is one of a huge number that is almost never used. Unless you crash while eating and driving, when the insurance won't pay out because you were breaking the law.
Andy
Andy
Well being that i rented most of my life and now OWN my own home i can say without a second thought that i am perfectly fine with the state saying that. If the state owns the home and you dont then its no different then if you went back to mommy and daddy and stayed with them and they said no smoking. If you dont own it then dont bitch. Renters have more rights then the owners do in most cases. And for those of you stating medical reasons for the use of smoking then by all means continue till you dont have a home because the own gave you notice to vacate. Its simple math you+own+home=do what you like. Even if you have a federal mortgage you still own that home, but if you are just a renter like in sec 8 housing then sorry to say but do as you are told. Like in my case i own my home but rent the land it sits on. I have to maintain the land but by no means does the land owner have a right to my home so i can do whatever i like inside or outside because it is my home. People have to start thinking on a profit stand point as well as a personal. If you try to sell a car that smells of smoke you will get less for it then the same car that doesnt. Thats the same thought the government has, if they have to put x amount of dollar in fixing and cleaning and removing the smoke residue then they can state that you cant smoke in the unit, but any who....9 times outa 10 people will do what they want anyways. so its a moot point.
I am with six on this issue when it comes to those that chose not to work. sorry but your money needs to be spent on more important things. While i dont mean to speak for anyone else i highly doubt six meant that those that CANT work are not allow to enjoy the simple things but they too have more important things to spend that money on then luxury items. so how about the states making it mandatory to do drug testing to stay on welfare...lol
Just a quick note to say thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread. We have some dissenting opinions, but have remained entirely civil and have kept on topic of tobacco legislation. There have been no rants or personal attacks. Some, like me, have very strong opinions on this, but we've remained civil and have presented our arguments logically and reasonably. Good job guys.
Dave
Dave
- Status