Small Talker
|
This has just gone entirely too far. The city has no constitutional or other authority to ban the use of a legal substance by otherwise law-abiding citizens. Regulate, yes, by all means. Banning? HELL NO!
Smokers ought to do the "civil disobedience" thing that is so often glowingly and universally praised. This is the exact same situation that led to "civil rights" reform, except that "tobacco consumer" is the segregation issue instead of "color of skin". There are undoubtedly still some people who remember the time when people with black skin couldn't congregate in certain places, while people with white skin could. Tell me, what's the difference? A matter of choice? Get a grip, people. Everyone knows that tobacco consumers are hopelessly hooked and don't have any choice!
Come on, tobacco consumers! Stand up for the right, or continue to see the darkness of segregation creep its way back into our society!
|
| |
|
Everybody Knows My Name
|
Yeah..smoker's rights is comparable to that of blacks, with regards to the civil rights movement. Good luck with that argument.
So, let me get this straight.. Smoking is nearly guaranteed to cause health problems that will eventually put the smokers in a hospital. Smoking causes cancers that many people cancer patients in ECM suffer from. And..smokers feel they have a right to a dedicated place to smoke, in front of said hospital, while a decent percentage of those smokers are likely taking a break from visiting a loved one with cancer.
I would think people would feel shameful, smoking in front of a hospital. I guess I'm way off.
|
| |
|
New Kid on the Block
|
I wouldn't want folks hanging around in front or behind my house, however, I don't think that these "smokers" are out to get her, I think she should be able to sleep just fine. These "smokers" have friends/family in the hospital, I would just believe that they are probably worried about their loved ones, rather than causing harm to her. Let 'em smoke, geez!
|
| |
|
Small Talker
|
Exactly, paralegaleagle! Hey, I might not want a group of people of a certain ethnic or racial persuasion hanging around in the streets near my house, either, but as long as they're obeying the law there wouldn't be anything I could do about it. I'd just have to live with it, now wouldn't I?
BTW, if you live in the city, you have to make accomodations for the rights of others. That's what civilization is all about. (And that's why I chose to live in the country, in the middle of a large parcel of land that I own -- I am averse to making such accomodations for others' behaviors that are otherwise legal and moral (subject to interpretation) but that I find personally offensive.)
|
| |
|
Familiar Face
|
This is more evidence of the stupidity of the rush-to-judgement ordinance that the city council passed. People who wish to smoke (and I am not one of them) are going to do so. Get over it already. I have a good friend who smokes and we ate out at least once a week at a downtown Florence restaurant. We have begun checking out different restaurants in Sheffield and Tuscumbia, and have been pleased thus far.
|
| |
|
Small Talker
|
quote: Originally posted by dargamab:
This has just gone entirely too far. The city has no constitutional or other authority to ban the use of a legal substance by otherwise law-abiding citizens. Regulate, yes, by all means. Banning? HELL NO!
Smokers ought to do the "civil disobedience" thing that is so often glowingly and universally praised. This is the exact same situation that led to "civil rights" reform, except that "tobacco consumer" is the segregation issue instead of "color of skin". There are undoubtedly still some people who remember the time when people with black skin couldn't congregate in certain places, while people with white skin could. Tell me, what's the difference? A matter of choice? Get a grip, people. Everyone knows that tobacco consumers are hopelessly hooked and don't have any choice!
Come on, tobacco consumers! Stand up for the right, or continue to see the darkness of segregation creep its way back into our society!
This argument is ridiculous. You cannot take alcohol into certain places, parks, campuses, businesses, certain restaurants. Alcohol is a legal substance. You don't see drinkers whining about not being able to drink places. Some of these people complaining about not being able to smoke in places should reexamine their addiction.
Make that a double!
|
| |
| Posts: 171 | Location: McMann and Tate | Registered: 26 September 2009 |  |
|
Familiar Face
|
i smoked over a pack a day for 28 years and quitting was not that hard. that being said smokers pave our streets with the tar in their lungs. we should treat them with respect they are sacrificing their health with every taxed breath.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Ghandi
|
| |
|
Small Talker
|
quote: Originally posted by T S C:
According to the article, they are NOT obeying the law. They are littering and the police can and should go out there and fine each and every one of them that tosses a cigarette butt in the street or in that lady's yard the full amount permissable under the law.
Littering is another topic. The way I read the story, the lady's complaint has nothing to do with littering (the littering comment seems to be merely a reflection of an observation by the journalist). Littering is unacceptable behavior in civilization. Let's not make this out to be about littering. It's about the right of an individual to smoke, period. Anyone who asserts otherwise needs to get his head out of his own butt and smell the real world for a moment. |
| |
|
Small Talker
|
quote: Originally posted by Larry Tate:
This argument is ridiculous. You cannot take alcohol into certain places, parks, campuses, businesses, certain restaurants. Alcohol is a legal substance. You don't see drinkers whining about not being able to drink places.
Some of these people complaining about not being able to smoke in places should reexamine their addiction.
There is an undeniable relationship between alcohol consumption and increased crime. That's why the use of alcohol is restricted (not because someone didn't like the way it smells). Smoking cannot be compared to alcohol use in this way. Play fair, Larry! |
| |
|
Small Talker
|
|
| |
| Posts: 171 | Location: McMann and Tate | Registered: 26 September 2009 | |
|
New Kid on the Block
|
If they want people to NOT smoke than ban the sale of cig. I don't see a problem with people smoking, drinking, over eating, ect. this is their choice. I don't smoke although I have family and friends who do as most of you prob do. It is their right if they want to do this to their health. It is no different then drinking or over eating. These people know the risk. It is a legal substance that is being sold. I think they need to focus more on the stores that are selling to under age kids. Smoking and dipping is a prob in our school systems. If they want to try to stop smoking then start with the ones who are selling these to the kids. If they want to control what people do then make it illegal for them to be sold.
|
| |
|
