Up in smoke Options

[fingercuffs]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2008/0...mon.tobacco.cnn

We already have a smoking ban in public places. We also have legislation in the works that would ban smoking in private residences that adjoin other buildings (practically every home in San Francisco). Now corner stores might soon be banned from just selling cigarettes. Behold what happens when you give up your right to choose to Big Brother -- a little here, a little there, and before you know it, there's no freedom left.

[impala454]

I didn't read in the bill of rights where it said "you have the right to buy cigarettes at the corner store"

I love it when people mix up stupid shit like this with "big brother" and "freedom". Gimme a fuckin break.

[nickluto]

I guess it is kind of analogous to "dry county" mandates... you can still get cigarettes, but you have to drive a fuck of a long way.

[woody]

I didn't read in the bill of rights where it said "you have the right to buy cigarettes at the corner store"

I love it when people mix up stupid shit like this with "big brother" and "freedom". Gimme a fuckin break.

but you also don't read that you can't go to the corner store or you can't smoke in general

[impala454]

where did it say that you can't do those things?

[chook]

where did it say that you can't do those things?

It sucks though, they take away too much rights, and is really about money.

[impala454]

well it sucks that i'm not allowed to drive 90 on the freeway, but I'm not crying about losing rights.

[Oasis]

well it sucks that i'm not allowed to drive 90 on the freeway, but I'm not crying about losing rights.

Your analogy is off by a mile

A better analogy would making it illegal to drive on streets (even though it's legal to own and drive a car). It effectively limits and eliminates 90% of where you can drive....which is what this law is trying to do - eliminate 90% of where you're allowed to smoke in SF

What bullshit

[impala454]

The analogy works just fine. You missed the point. The point being, telling someone where and when and how they can do something does not mean that person's rights as given by the constitution/bill of rights are being curtailed.

and your "90% of where you can smoke" is a little overexaggerated.

[Epic]

Your analogy is off by a mile

A better analogy would making it illegal to drive on streets (even though it's legal to own and drive a car). It effectively limits and eliminates 90% of where you can drive....which is what this law is trying to do - eliminate 90% of where you're allowed to smoke in SF

What bullshit

Or that making it illegal for you to drive on streets when it has been shown that your driving habits endanger the lives and health of others, but only streets where the population is dense enough to make your driving habits a high-impact situation.

Now doesn't that make sense? If something that YOU do has been found to negatively impact the health of OTHER people, don't you think they can control how and where you do it? Oh wait, if you drive recklessly and endanger others, they take your license away. Time to get buttsore over that.

[Oasis]

No, your analogy does not work.

If the speed limit was 90 in this country, and a city decided to make it illegal to drive 90 in their city, then your analogy would work. "How," "where" and "when," as you stated, is irrelevant. You can't drive 90 anywhere, at any time in this country. It isn't illegal to smoke in this country, save for certain areas (restaurants, etc). That is why your analogy doesn't work. You're comparing apples to oranges

If a law was passed limiting how many packs of cigarettes you could buy, or how many you could consume per day, your analogy would be much stronger. Driving and smoking cigarettes are legal. Driving over the speed limit and smoking or purchasing more than the allowed amount per day (if such a law was passed) would be illegal, and therefore comparable in an analogy.

Try again.

[Epic]

i really don't have to try again will, because it really does work just fine with me, and others that i have discussed it with.

it is still legal to smoke, just not there. and as far as buying cigarette's at the corner store, it's the same thing as not being able to buy hard liquor in many grocery stores. regulate availability, reduce abuse is the reasoning there.

in my analogy, it is still legal to drive, and to smoke, just not wherever you want. Just because you may want to drive on the sidewalk, doesn't mean you can.

And read it the way I wrote it, where it reasons that IF your habit has been deemed wreckless, it can be regulated by the government. If my driving is still safe then I can drive on crowded city streets. Now if your behavior, like smoking, is deemed wreckless, which is has been, its not legal to do so that way, that time, that place.

It's regulation, and frankly I'd like to see more regulations on smoking because I'm sick and tired of having to navigate my way around chain smokers or even leisurely smokers who have no regard for my health.

So rebutt, but i'll disagree with you because I don't think we get full access to every right. I have the right to own a gun, but not to discharge it wherever I want.


oh yeah...try again.

[impala454]

But I can't drive 50 in some areas and can in others. You're delving too much into the specifics and not looking at the real point. The point being that restrictions can exist without removing your given rights as an American citizen.

[Oasis]

Or that making it illegal for you to drive on streets when it has been shown that your driving habits endanger the lives and health of others, but only streets where the population is dense enough to make your driving habits a high-impact situation.

Now doesn't that make sense? If something that YOU do has been found to negatively impact the health of OTHER people, don't you think they can control how and where you do it? Oh wait, if you drive recklessly and endanger others, they take your license away. Time to get buttsore over that.

I don't particularly like the smoking ban. I think it should be up to individual bar/restaurant owners to decide whether to allow smoking in their private establishments. That way, people who want to be around smoke have the option of doing so, and people who don't want to be around smoke have the option of going to a nonsmoking establishment. No one gets hurt with choice. And don't give me the idiotic "It limits where I can go!" argument. Big deal. Find another bar that caters to your lifestyle. I personally don't go to bars that play rap music because I fucking hate rap, but I don't cry foul because the owner made a choice to cater to a specific group in his club...I go somewhere else. And goddammit, I'm not implying rap music is bad for your health (although it might as well be). I'm making a broad comparison and saying you can avoid things you dislike being around

It's impossible, as a decent driver, to avoid dangerous dipshits on the road. License revocation is rare. I know people who have gotten 20+ tickets and still have their license. People who get in multiple at fault wrecks will lose their insurance before they lose their license. If you get a DWI, you lose your license, but you can easily get it back if you pay a $1k/yr Administrative License Revocation fee. The government, quite honestly, doesn't give a dick about taking away bad drivers' licenses. They care about the revenue generated from fees and tickets that bad drivers get. Shitty drivers keep the government in business.

Unlike smoking, where I have a choice as to whether or not I want to be around it, I can't avoid dangerous drivers. It's not like there are two sets of roads, one for dangerous drivers and one for good drivers. So no, your analogy is flawed as well.

On second thought, you're right about one thing. Road safety is very comparable to the smoking ban in one aspect. It's illegal to smoke in bars, but the punishment if you're caught is placed on the offender, not the establishment. If I'm caught smoking in a non smoking bar, I get fined. The bar doesn't. I won't be banned from the bar (by the government, at least) so I'm free to go back in there, break the law again, put other peoples' health at risk again, and get caught and fined again. Isn't that pretty much how the roads work? Do something reckless on the road, put other peoples' safety at risk, get caught, and get fined....and as long as you pay enough money, you'll get that license to drive back, so you can go right back and do it again. The smoking ban is nothing more than cosmetics to make people think the government cares about our wellbeing. If they passed liability back to the bar owners, there would be no smoking in bars, and therefore safer for the population. With liability placed on the individual offender, nothing gets solved. People are still at risk. Bar owners don't care because it isn't hurting their bottom line. The only one who wins is the government collecting the fines at the expense of everyone else's wellbeing. So yeah, that is comparable to road safety. The more I thought about it writing this, the more I realized you were right, although I doubt your initial reasoning was along these lines

[Jim]

I didn't read in the bill of rights where it said "you have the right to buy cigarettes at the corner store"

I love it when people mix up stupid shit like this with "big brother" and "freedom". Gimme a fuckin break.

Smoking is a right to privacy... so, technically, it's in the constitution...