Yet Another Smoking Ban
- Thread starter ylexot
- Start date
bobbyflatliner
New Member
you win.
cigarettes are healthy, and the government is out to get us.
cigarettes are healthy, and the government is out to get us.
Am I not speaking English?greyhound said:
"Groups" are responsible for banning smoking - that's how this all originated. The state legislatures didn't just come up with this on their own. Someone decided that smoking should be banned in bars and restaurants, then they got a group of supporters together. Then that group petitioned their Congressman or their state legislator, who wrote it up and presented it to the rest of the legislature for a vote.
How do you think this stuff works?
greyhound
New Member
vraiblonde said:Am I not speaking English?
"Groups" are responsible for banning smoking - that's how this all originated. The state legislatures didn't just come up with this on their own. Someone decided that smoking should be banned in bars and restaurants, then they got a group of supporters together. Then that group petitioned their Congressman or their state legislator, who wrote it up and presented it to the rest of the legislature for a vote.
How do you think this stuff works?
You have still not answered the original question (brought up by you)...What public libraries have banned books?
Last edited:
StarCat
New Member
We were in NJ yesterday and they were talking about yesterday being the first day that they started to enforce the ban. Just my luck, it was a total PITA to try to find smoking places. In all honesty, if it keeps being a PITA for me to be able to smoke, I think I will quit. Cigarettes in NJ were also, over $5 a pack. It'll be a cold day in hell before I spend that much on cigarettes. I had to chew gum back to Delawareylexot said:
If they put the smoking ban through in Charles County, I'll cry.
Here's another one:
http://www.ioerror.us/2005/01/10/jon-stewarts-america-the-book-banned/
http://www.ioerror.us/2005/01/10/jon-stewarts-america-the-book-banned/
MMDad
Lem Putt
We're in Delaware for Easter. Yesterday, we went to Appleby's and we were able to sit at the bar and not have to smell the smoke. It was great. In Maryland, I would never sit at the bar in Appleby's because of that. That's the way capitalism works: accomodate your customers or loose business. I encourage all you anti smoker types to speak with your wallets - don't go to places that allow smoking if it bothers you. If you find a non-smoker friendly place, go there and speak with your wallet. The idea that we need the Government to protect us is ridiculous.
The states that enact these bans are knee-jerking to a vocal minority. People point to the negative effects of second hand smoke. While almost everyone will admit that second smoke is bad for you, just how bad is it? Studies show carcinogens, toxic substances, pollutants, irritants, etc. but how does that compare with everyday exposure to the same things outside of smoking?
The socialist bans are preventing smoking regardless of the real health risks. With every other hazardous substance in the workplace, permissible exposure levels are set. This is true for most, if not all, of the substances in second hand smoke. If the permissible levels are being exceeded due to smoking, enforce the laws already in effect that require employers to reduce exposure. If smoking does not cause workers to be exposed to excessive levels, what basis does the government have for creating bans?
The states that enact these bans are knee-jerking to a vocal minority. People point to the negative effects of second hand smoke. While almost everyone will admit that second smoke is bad for you, just how bad is it? Studies show carcinogens, toxic substances, pollutants, irritants, etc. but how does that compare with everyday exposure to the same things outside of smoking?
The socialist bans are preventing smoking regardless of the real health risks. With every other hazardous substance in the workplace, permissible exposure levels are set. This is true for most, if not all, of the substances in second hand smoke. If the permissible levels are being exceeded due to smoking, enforce the laws already in effect that require employers to reduce exposure. If smoking does not cause workers to be exposed to excessive levels, what basis does the government have for creating bans?
greyhound
New Member
vraiblonde said:
What took so long? I didn't disagree but I hate when people give examples and don't back then up with facts. Now, Is that book still not on the shelves. Is the book actually banned or just taken off the shelves. Could the book be checked out if asked for? JUst from the little information I could find, the info says the book was taken off the shelves. I can't tell from the wording if it was "banned".
Last edited:
Nickel
curiouser and curiouser
Agreed. There are so many things in this world to worry about, I am so not concerned with who smokes and where. Like others have said, if I go to a restaurant, I ask for the non-smoking section. I've never been so bothered by a cigarette (and I've sat at a table eating, while someone across from me is smoking) that I can't finish my meal. I'm a "don't sweat the small stuff" type of gal myself though, and don't tend to give a crap about most things.CableChick said:
Our "society has become entirely too PC or "sensitive". I ask where in the Constitution does it say people are guaranteed the right not to be offended? Rhetorical - it is not in there.vraiblonde said:
Remember when "Little Black Sambo" was banned? I have a copy. It was one of my favorite books as a child. It was banned because some hyphenated ethnic people (Where is Afro-America? I've never seen it on a map.) didn't like the title. If they had bothered to read it, they would have found out that it was about an Indian boy (from India - not an American indian) that outsmarted a tiger. The little black kid was portrayed as smart and a winner, but because the title had the word black in it, it just had to be bad.
Not all banned books are because of PC sensitivities. Jon Stewart's book was banned because it showed the Supremes' heads on nekkid bodies, which surely didn't enrage the liberals - more likely it was the conservatives.2ndAmendment said:
I can see removing certain age-inappropriate books from schools, but public libraries should never ban a book for any reason. Age restrict it - okay. But not an outright ban.
I dislike bans in general and think they're unAmerican. MMDad said "Speak with your wallet" and that's exactly how it's SUPPOSED to work. Privately owned businesses can go non-smoking any time they want - yet they wait until the state forces them to. Why do you suppose that is?
My guess is that non-smokers don't have that powerful of wallets when it comes to drinking and dining. I don't know the stats on who eats out more or hangs out in bars more often, but I would have to guess it's smokers. Otherwise bars and restaurants would have catered to their non-smoking clientele long before the state had to legislate a ban.