[remembers last Bloomberg thread,,, bites lip,,, holds tongue....]
Needless to say, I'm not a fan. But I know someone who (counterintuitively) is.
Needless to say, I'm not a fan. But I know someone who (counterintuitively) is.
Raising The Smoking Age
- Thread starter puffy
- Start date
- Status
We have so many laws and rules (many defying common sense) that they can't be controlled or enforced as it is. Why do we as in "we the people" keep allowing it to spiral down? I know that question opens up a can of worms, but who is finaly going to have a big-enough foot to put it down and say enough is enough?
If 18 is old enough to go to war, it old enough to smoke. May be too young to drink. (One doesn't get drunk and crash their car after smoking a bowl). The good news is that moronic nanny mayor is leaving.
Maybe the problem isn't with changing the smoking and drinking age to 21 but the problem is we should change the age of consent to join the military to 21? All of a sudden our governments won't have kids they can brainwash as easily. Of course I won't hold my breathe for that change because that will not be in the governments best interest.
From The Rules.
We have a lot of new members and I'd hate to see anyone get started here on the wrong foot.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the tobacco legislation.
Well, that's one hell of a lovely precident.
(In response to the law passing, not anything about political posting or the related rules)
(In response to the law passing, not anything about political posting or the related rules)
I simply think that putting guns and pipes together under the same banner of 'individual rights' is misleading and too much of a generalisation. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not a US citizen. No doubt many will consider that as devaluating what I have to say on the issue, but I don't think it precludes me from having an opinion on it.)
I agree with a lot of the stringent legislation designed to protect non-smokers. Ireland, where I live, was the first country in the world to implement a general ban on smoking in workplaces. By and large, I think this was a good thing: employees, employers, bar-goers, restaurant-goers etc who choose not to smoke (in other words, the majority of the population) have a right to work and socialise in an environment that is not laden with smoke. I would also, for example, support a ban on smoking in cars with children. Certainly these policies have their flaws, and represent a nuisance to smokers, but that's what living together as a society requires: compromise.
(What I don't agree with, and where the 'nanny state' goes too far, is targeting smokers not on the grounds of protecting non-smokers but on those of protecting the smoker from himself. This includes taxes designed specifically to be prohibitive and/or punitive, and making no distinction between the various forms of tobacco - and, again, as an Irish citizen, I know an awful lot about outrageous tobacco taxes.)
My point is that I don't oppose SOME elements of tobacco legislation simply on the grounds of individual rights. Rights and liberties (I'd consider smoking a 'liberty', not some elemental 'right') need to be curtailed for any society to work properly. Smokers' 'rights' need to be curtailed to a degree, but equally non-smokers' (or, more specifically, anti-smokers') 'rights' also need to be limited to a place where they are reasonable and logical. My point is - and apologies for the muddled ramble - it doesn't follow that opinions on tobacco legislation and gun control are interchangeable or based on the same fundamental principles.
I agree with a lot of the stringent legislation designed to protect non-smokers. Ireland, where I live, was the first country in the world to implement a general ban on smoking in workplaces. By and large, I think this was a good thing: employees, employers, bar-goers, restaurant-goers etc who choose not to smoke (in other words, the majority of the population) have a right to work and socialise in an environment that is not laden with smoke. I would also, for example, support a ban on smoking in cars with children. Certainly these policies have their flaws, and represent a nuisance to smokers, but that's what living together as a society requires: compromise.
(What I don't agree with, and where the 'nanny state' goes too far, is targeting smokers not on the grounds of protecting non-smokers but on those of protecting the smoker from himself. This includes taxes designed specifically to be prohibitive and/or punitive, and making no distinction between the various forms of tobacco - and, again, as an Irish citizen, I know an awful lot about outrageous tobacco taxes.)
My point is that I don't oppose SOME elements of tobacco legislation simply on the grounds of individual rights. Rights and liberties (I'd consider smoking a 'liberty', not some elemental 'right') need to be curtailed for any society to work properly. Smokers' 'rights' need to be curtailed to a degree, but equally non-smokers' (or, more specifically, anti-smokers') 'rights' also need to be limited to a place where they are reasonable and logical. My point is - and apologies for the muddled ramble - it doesn't follow that opinions on tobacco legislation and gun control are interchangeable or based on the same fundamental principles.
An excellent point. In the UK what was the point in banning "smoking clubs" (except for the only smoking club that exists in the UK in the Houses of Parliament!). At the British Pipe Smoking Championship last year, the event was held in a marquee away from any buildings. The ridiculous part of the law is that we still have to comply with the "substantially enclosed area" rules and had to leave 50% of the walls of the marquee open. With a cold wind and rain howling in, this isn't particularly pleasant. A satirical example in how they use the legislation to protect smokers from themselves.
Now they want to extend no smoking areas to include some outdoor areas, like a certain distance from entrances and not in parks etc. Reminds me of the joke where the old Irish man is smoking outside a pub door. The Gard walks over to him and says, "You know it is illegal to smoke within 30 feet of the pub door." The old man replies, "Ah well you see sir, I am drinking in that pub across the street!".
That's a good one Reborn :D And I agree that it's on these irrationally particular points of technicality that such laws tend to make fools of themselves.
trailboss: excellent posts. Thank you.
I will stay out of it as I have found myself incapable of politely discussing these issues with nanny-state 'banners'. There's simply too much at stake right now to entertain or excuse continued infringements on individual liberties. There's also too much hoplophobia to have a rational conversation on the issue.
I will stay out of it as I have found myself incapable of politely discussing these issues with nanny-state 'banners'. There's simply too much at stake right now to entertain or excuse continued infringements on individual liberties. There's also too much hoplophobia to have a rational conversation on the issue.
:- Status