Printable View
I think the penalty shiould go one way or the other(and Im not a cigarette smoker, actually hate the smell) but in all fairness, if a smoker is taxed, has to pay higher insurance, etc...than that should be it, no extra punishment or discrimination, like from an employer!!
Clever comeback. Thanks for the educated and informative reply. That being said, you may have a point on one issue, if we're going to outlaw things that are unhealthy, let's either outlaw all of them or none of them and give up the double, triple, quadruple standards. And let's get the heatlh nazi's out of our lives as well. Neither you nor the fed/state/county/city govt has the right to tell me I can't smoke (cigs or pot) in my home on my property anymore than they have a right to ban me from eating meat or fish or a quarer pounder for that matter. And banning smoking on private property should be left up to the property owner, not the government. If there's such a huge market for smokefree bars and restaurants...open your own and you'll make a killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by daves19
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonsaiguy
now that's a good argument! you're right on the sens nobody can tell you what we can put or not into our own body on our own property...in fact the only thing i don't like about cig, and you're right it's not my business, it's it has no purposes else than making money on the back of the addict...
so what i like about this law is it's a good blow against the tobacco industry, but at the same time against the user which is the unfortunate part i must agree...and that law could help legalize the pot elsewhere...because it is obvious that tobacco put pressure against legalisation...
anyways, you're right, no one can tell you what to do or not to do on your own property...but on the public path i guest this law is okay...
I agree that they need a swift kick in the ass for all of the lying, maketing to kids, and generally being unethical shithead business folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by daves19
But the american tobacco industry has already accounted for this by expanding their reach in to Europe, Asia, and third world countries. And all the smoking bans and taxes enacted in this country have put little or no dent in their revenues. In fact, even the notorious tobacco suits made little or no dent in their bottom line since they were given something like 10 or 20 years to pay up, allowing them time to invest the money and effectively double it, (like Exxon and their fines for the Valediz oil spill) ultimately costing them nothing. Except some bad PR.
I have too agree with you on smoking, I do, and it's killing me mostly because the chemicals in it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
Now you hit home with your TARGET of you know who!!!!!!!....
Remember this!
Where's bin Laden........
For your future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availability with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
â??"Because he's hidingâ?¦" Bush, explaining why Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured. (Washington Post interview, Jan. 16, 2005)
Bush has spoken it doesn't matter and they are the ruling party!:mad:
--------------------
"In politics nothing is accidental. If something happens, be assured it was
planned this way" ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.--Benjamin Franklin
I don't neccessarily agree with this but I can see the reasoning behind it. If the city is providing health insurance for its workers, it does stand to reason that they would be able to negotiate lower rates if they had a no-smoking policy for new hiring. I would think, however, that a better alternative would be simply to deny insurance to smokers or require them to pay a higher portion than non-smokers. To simply deny them a job not only hurts the smokers but also the city. Being a smoker really isn't an indication of performance and to rule smokers out would limit the number of potentailly excellent workers available in the area.