Tyrants in Maryland do it again

[Bustem' Down]

At least when you smoke you get the benefit of a filter, us second handers don't even get that. The least you could do is offer us a reach around.

What filtering it through out lungs isn't good enough?

 

[PsyOps]

Smoking is severely limited in our society. Why isn't it ridiculous to ban smoking on private property? Where do we draw the line in the sand when the old one, the Constitution, is simply wiped away?

That is the dilemma I raised earlier. Limit smokers or limit non-smokers? Logically the argument supports the non-smoker. A non-smoker, by nature, affects no one. A smoker affects everyone around them.

The scenarios I am painting are not only NOT ridiculous, Montgomery county has been arguing for several years now about smoke and other airborne pollutants from one house to another, including grill smoke.

How far should ones right to not be offended extend on private property?

This, to me, is not about offending someone. This is about health. Anyone arguing that I can’t prove that sucking smoke into your lungs is unhealthy, then I say go light up your house on fire and sit in the living room and breathe deeply.

 

[Larry Gude]

That is so much...

At least when you smoke you get the benefit of a filter, us second handers don't even get that. The least you could do is offer us a reach around.

...laboratory horse####.


Sit in a bar with a smoker all night. The next day you will have X level of traces from the second hand smoke in your system. SO WILL THE SMOKER. They don't just breathe through the filter when they're puffing. They breathe second hand smoke when they're not actively puffing.

Smoking has far, far more affect on the smoker than the second hander.

 

[mAlice]

I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll have happy hour at my house, and the psycho ops of the world are not invited to hear the interesting conversation.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yes, he did smoke when I met him.

Then you had a choice.

Larry smoked when I met and married him. I specifically requested a smoker in my personal ad. The respondents who said they didn't smoke themselves but didn't mind being around smokers got tossed in the discard pile immediately because I knew eventually they would "change their minds" and nag me to change as well.

Larry hasn't been too bad since he quit smoking, but it definitely annoys him and he wishes I would quit. Now he will have the smoke-free home he's always wanted, so everyone can be happy again.

 

[PsyOps]

That's always the stupidest argument.

To someone that smokes I suppose it would be.

 

[vraiblonde]

I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll have happy hour at my house, and the psycho ops of the world are not invited to hear the interesting conversation.

We can happy hour at my house, too

 

[mAlice]

We can happy hour at my house, too

We'll swap out. One week my house, next week yours. I'm sure we can get Christy in the loop, too.

Screw the pc'ers.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Now he will have the smoke-free home he's always wanted, so everyone can be happy again.

You quitting?

 

[PsyOps]

I started to go back and quote every post you made in this thread that was supporting the smoking ban, but there were way too many because almost every sentence you've said in here is clearly in favor of having smoking banned anywhere you happen to wander.

I think it's YOU that should consider paying attention.

You wont find one instance where I stated I support a smoking ban as legislated by our government. I am adamently against such laws. I am against smoking, just like I think everyone should wear a seatbelt... butour government should stay out of such legal wranglings.

 

[Bustem' Down]

To someone that smokes I suppose it would be.

No, because the amount of second hand smoke affecting you is small compared to other pollutants in the air. That said, even if you made smoking illegal, you still wouldn't have smoke free air. There's auto exhaust, power plants, refineries, trains ships, etc, etc.

Maybe I should push a suit against power plants for exposure to electromagnetic radiation from power lines. I've waited decades to have electromagnetic radiation free air.

 

[vraiblonde]

Limit smokers or limit non-smokers?

SMOKERS ARE ALREADY LIMITED.

This bill is NOT about "limits" - it's about an across the board BAN.

What part of this is so incomprehensible to you? The legislators themselves refer to it as a "ban". The "limits" were imposed 10 years ago.

 

[Larry Gude]

Simple...

That is the dilemma I raised earlier. Limit smokers or limit non-smokers? Logically the argument supports the non-smoker. A non-smoker, by nature, affects no one. A smoker affects everyone around them.



This, to me, is not about offending someone. This is about health. Anyone arguing that I can’t prove that sucking smoke into your lungs is unhealthy, then I say go light up your house on fire and sit in the living room and breathe deeply.

...objectivity and perspective says smokers have already been VERY limited. Logically, the argument says that the side that has given the most should NOT been required to give ALL.

Smoking is bad for your health. It just is. So are cheeseburgers. So is drinking. So is working on your car if you use any solvents or grease. I'd wager standing over a stove has some ill affects. Using bathroom cleaners is bad for you. Driving a car kills 40,000 of us a year. And worrying about stuff too much will kill you dead.

At what point are people autonomous? Our founding fathers would find the anti smoking crusade a page right our of King Georges playbook. Especially given how limited smoking truly is.

You are claiming a right to never be threatened by smoke in a world that never requires you to be even near it.

 

[cattitude]

Then you had a choice.

Larry smoked when I met and married him. I specifically requested a smoker in my personal ad. The respondents who said they didn't smoke themselves but didn't mind being around smokers got tossed in the discard pile immediately because I knew eventually they would "change their minds" and nag me to change as well.

Larry hasn't been too bad since he quit smoking, but it definitely annoys him and he wishes I would quit. Now he will have the smoke-free home he's always wanted, so everyone can be happy again.

Yes, I did have a choice and I can't imagine being without him.

 

[vraiblonde]

You quitting?

Nope - getting my own house.

 

[PsyOps]

So laid-back smokers are more fun than the Smoke-Nazis?


Say it isn't so.

In many ways.... yes.

 

[PsyOps]

Then why do you keep going on and on and on about it?

Because I understand the argument. It's a valid one.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yes, I did have a choice and I can't imagine being without him.

Then there you go. You are choosing to stay with a smoker, even though smoking irritates you. You are choosing to go to bars and restaurants that have smoking. You choose to have friends that smoke.

Choice.

What a beautiful word.

 

[vraiblonde]

Because I understand the argument. It's a valid one.

There is no valid argument for a smoking ban, nor have you presented one.

 

[PsyOps]

...laboratory horse####.


Sit in a bar with a smoker all night. The next day you will have X level of traces from the second hand smoke in your system. SO WILL THE SMOKER. They don't just breathe through the filter when they're puffing. They breathe second hand smoke when they're not actively puffing.

Smoking has far, far more affect on the smoker than the second hander.

So you agree there are health consequences to the non-smoker.