TexasCHLforum.com

Trinitite wrote:So those little signs don't just ban smoking. They ban concealed carry of cigarettes.

I always keep one strapped to my ankle as a backup.

EDIT: Also, you never know when you'll get a nicotine craving. Carry 24/7 or guess right.

Abraham wrote:Why would anyone want to shoot or own guns?

I just don't get it.

I like this. It goes with the post earlier saying to change smoking to guns in Kawabuggy's post. It really puts things in a different light.

EDIT: deleted redundant "earlier" in sentence 2.

marksiwel wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.

Lets think of it like this, if I had nuclear Waste facility next door and they were doing a poor job of keeping the public shielded from Nuclear Waste, I shouldnt have to sue them, they should be doing everything possible to keep me from being harmed.
Same thing with Smoking.
if Second and Third hand smoke are that dangerous, it only makes sense to limit the exposure to the public (The whole my rights end where your nose begins thing)

I disagree. I think it would be a better system in which the people would bring suits against the facility, get money, and force them, financially, to make the changes. Making it criminal means the government now has a large, wasteful department to monitor and fine nuclear waste facilities, and it restricts the free market by requiring extra personnel at the plant to take care of the inevitable stack of paperwork and records they'll need to keep.

I have a problem with current Americans' habit of taking every problem they have with their everyday life to the government. There are lots of bad things, but they don't all need to be illegal or regulated.

Whats the name of the Large Goverment Anti-Smoking Department?
Suing people for getting Lung Cancer ,when you could have just prevented it seems wastefull.
Alot of Business would go smoke free on their own, or go out of business all together.

That would be the much-loved ATF. /sarcasm

What you're saying about businesses going smoke-free on their own is exactly what I picture in my ideal style of government and economics. A pure libertarian, capitalist society would be self-regulating, and, if society feels smoking should be stopped or slowed, business would respond with bans. As it became more inconvenient to smoke, people would do it less. It's my personal belief and opinion that it should not be a crime to smoke in public. It would be like criminalizing public coughs from people getting second-hand germs, or worse, HIV should the saliva have some blood in it and contact the victim's bodily fluids, such as an open cut.

I realize my hopes will not happen in America or any other country most likely. But they are simply an opinion, and I don't intend to flame or upset you in any way.

marksiwel wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.

Lets think of it like this, if I had nuclear Waste facility next door and they were doing a poor job of keeping the public shielded from Nuclear Waste, I shouldnt have to sue them, they should be doing everything possible to keep me from being harmed.
Same thing with Smoking.
if Second and Third hand smoke are that dangerous, it only makes sense to limit the exposure to the public (The whole my rights end where your nose begins thing)

I disagree. I think it would be a better system in which the people would bring suits against the facility, get money, and force them, financially, to make the changes. Making it criminal means the government now has a large, wasteful department to monitor and fine nuclear waste facilities, and it restricts the free market by requiring extra personnel at the plant to take care of the inevitable stack of paperwork and records they'll need to keep.

I have a problem with current Americans' habit of taking every problem they have with their everyday life to the government. There are lots of bad things, but they don't all need to be illegal or regulated.

I disagree strongly with smoking bans, especially if they look anything like Kawabuggy's list, which is more restrictive than any smoking ban I've heard of.

My reasoning for disagreeing is not because of what rights are whose. I simply dislike any government interaction in things that should be left as social and civil matters. If you think you have a right not to be exposed to someone's smoke, sue them and be compensated. If a business says you can't smoke there and you think it infringes on your right, sue them. These things should not be crimes. It's small steps like this that lead to a nanny state.