I'm sorry to sound like a Freeper, but this sounds like Leftist Nanny Statism

[bluestateguy]

The Right wants to get into our bedrooms and now apparently some people on the Left want to do so as well, in a different way. And of course everything is "for the children".

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988

Belmont to be First U.S. City to Ban all Smoking

Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.
The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,” said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.”

Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.


more

[Jed Dilligan]

1. Think of how many lives would be saved

if we just banned cars! Let's pass laws against everything that's the slightest bit dangerous, so that we can all live forever! Scissors? Hell no! Not even paper clips! We will build our houses out of jell-o and crawl on our bellies to avoid the hazards of tripping! And law enforcement armed with military weaponry will ENSURE THAT IT IS SO!

I welcome the brave new world and our new statistician-overlords!

[spacelady]

60. Someone might run with those scissors, you know. n/t

[Ian_rd]

144. I once banged my head on an open cabinet door.

Therefore I plan to sue the largest manufacturers of architectural cabinetry for negligence and promote a law to make all surfaces in the home and workplace coated with rubber and styrofoam. A little second-hand smoke is nothing compared to head trauma!

[liberaldemocrat7]

62. I do support banning smoking in some places. I do consider cigarette smoke poison.

I support banning smoking in public enclosed places such as bars, restaurants, movie theaters, sports stadiums, because I do not get a choice whether I want to breathe cigarette smoke or not.

I do not want to breathe other people's smoke.

Banning smoking outside goes too far. Banning smoking in a person's house goes too far also. I include sports stadiums because if thousands of people smoke in a stadium, even outdoors it does affect those who do not want to breathe in smoke.

I wouldn't want to have to breathe the fumes of a lead paint can left open either in a public place.

I suppose people say second hand smoke appears ok because the rate of death from second hand smoke appears very slow and takes years. I say, why should I take the chance.

[Jed Dilligan]

69. Why not go after corporate polluters,

who are much more pervasive and destructive than individual polluters?

[Vorta]

117. It's not your property and you do have a choice

I support banning smoking in public enclosed places such as bars, restaurants, movie theaters, sports stadiums, because I do not get a choice whether I want to breathe cigarette smoke or not.


I fully support your right to forbid smoking in any building that you own as well as government buildings.

The market was already responding to the demand for nonsmoking spaces. Bars had started to have nonsmoking sections, restaurants had had them for a long time, some places were going completely smoke-free. That wasn't good enough for the antismoking folks, because their zeal is not simply to protect themselves, it's to make other people conform.

Now it's obvious that these zealots, many of whom smoke pot, are not satisfied. Anyone who works in a corporate environment has expected this for a long time. Why? Because professional pains-in-the-butt always find a need or reason to go to the place where smokers smoke.

[hfojvt]

141. non smoking sections are a joke

You could always smell the smoke anyway, unless it's a closed room and separate from the ventilation intakes. Whenever I spent an hour sitting and talking in a non-smoking section I could smell the smoke on my clothes when I got home. But I am not against allowing some establishments to be smoking. Nobody is forced to work there and nobody is forced to eat there either.

[Greyhound]

183. What about flatulence?

I feel it is more offensive. It is certainly more dangerous.

[slaveplanet]

115. I wonder if they're going to

eliminate burning wood fires in fire places also, that's where I see this all heading? Take away cheap emergency heat from poor people. 1 fire is equal to 1000's of packs of cigarettes in output, think of how many lives could be saved?

[Jed Dilligan]

122. Actually it's been banned for a long time in the UK

where people light up wherever. Fireplace smoke is a much more serious source of air pollution--not that I would ban it. Go after industries first, and the need or desire to go after people would disappear.

[slaveplanet]

126. Ahh- the old,

no axe shall defile the Queen's forests...no firearm shall be raised against the queen's fauna. Subjugation sounds like so much fun.

Freedom is on the march.

[Jed Dilligan]

128. Talking about a more modern ban

English friends are horrified that we can still burn wood in our fireplaces. It used to be that every winter a few old folks would succumb to the smoke in London (formerly known as "The Big Black Smoke".) They burned coal and wood. Fireplaces are in the top three sources of air pollution where I live, along with cars and agriculture. I'd be happy to keep the fireplaces and reform the auto and ag industries...

[slaveplanet]

138. I understand where you're coming from

and agree about the industry, but remain extremely cynical (as always)about the true targets here.

It comes as no surprise that your English friends would feel that way, after centuries of subjugation and all. In Appalachia coal is still in use for home heat, as are wood fires in the northeast, midwest and northwest etc... The latter mostly for pleasure. I've always looked at it as a holdover from the pioneer spirit that separates us from our Anglo counterparts. This nation was founded on contracts written and unwritten of sorts, one of them should be: If you don't want us to live as pioneers then make the daily necessities easily available at an affordable price. If not, take a hike, all bets are off. I've always felt that once this pioneer spirit is gone from this nation then so is the nation. Now this doesn't necessarily include the right to smoke anywhere, but it sure as hell applies to keeping the family warm. Which unfortunatley, I see as a potential target in all these new smoking and air quality laws, while the industry will always get the pass or loophole.

[Jed Dilligan]

155. I know where you're coming from, too

My family on one side is very pioneer-ish... They have only been using cash and doing business with municipal governments for two generations, and still they do so reluctantly. Before, it was all hunting, fishing, and barter for services, since they are all experts at blacksmithing, construction, electrics, etc.

[EstimatedProphet]

134. As a statistician, I accept

You may bow down to me now.

[Jed Dilligan]

161. Only if you promise to reduce my chance of dying

by another 0.00000000001% !

[EstimatedProphet]

181. Hold your breath while you go by power plants

You may now bow down to me.

[Adelante]

166. My thought, too

I would like to sue people who drive cars. :D

[Starbucks Anarchist]

2. And they're off!

:popcorn:

[WillyT]

55. LOL !!!

:popcorn:

[lonestarnot]

81. Teehee.

Smokers breaking dead last in more ways than one! :smoke:

[cobalt1999]

135. LOL!

The Nanny-State sexism sub thread was an unexpected entertainment that had me laughing out loud.

[madmusic]

163. How many times did you have to go get more popcorn?

[Megahurtz]

168. Yeah they're off alright.

:crazy:

[B3Nut]

3. You don't sound like a freeper

You sound like someone committed to preserving an individual's freedom of choice. You are correct, it is nanny-statism gone too far. I don't like left-wing authoritarians any more than right-wing authoritarians. A meddlesome control freak is a meddlesome control freak, regardless of which point on the political spectrum they occupy. Some of those wankers should seriously switch to decaf...

Todd in Beerbratistan

[lostnotforgotten]

90. Why Should I Have To Breathe Your Smoke From Your Foul Habit?

eom

[sniffa]

96. you don't have to ride in his car

or Live in his singLe famiLy detached house.

[Vorta]

118. The law forbids smoking in cars

[B3Nut]

105. You assume, incorrectly, that I smoke.

I do not, and have not since 1990. Smoke-free restaurants and bars I'm fine with (hell, I hate smelling like a damned ashtray after a gig.) But outdoors? Please. And in the privacy of one's own car? Not the government's business, or mine, or yours.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[Jed Dilligan]

123. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the counterargument

It hinges entirely on the assumption that we are selfishly defending our own habits, rather than a principle of civil liberty.

[Greyhound]

143. You don't, you can go away, please do so. n/t

[lostnotforgotten]

162. Won't Happen So Don't Hold Your Breath!

eom

[newsdude]

186. These local bans are foolish

No smoking in restaurants? Bars?
Ridiculous.
Allow bar owners and restaurants to choose who they will cater to.
Make a law that forces restaurants and bars to choose whether or not they will be smoke-free.

Restaurants and bars appeal to our decadance.
If you want to get out of the house, eat a big dinner and have some drinks, you go to the restaurants and bars that cater to smoking.

If you don't smoke, go to the others.

God damn it. If you go to a bar once in a month and deal with second hand smoke, you face less lung damage then you would driving on busy freeways 5 times a week.

These anti-smoking activists are a smug, self-righteous crowd, worthy of the kind of satire we save for the fundys.
Always judging. Always preaching.


Back the fuck off.

[rug]

4. Fist they banned nursing bras with ashtrays . . .

it's a slippery slope.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

8. hahahahahahahahah...

LOLLLLLLLLL @ 'nursing bras with ashtrays'

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. Those bra-burning liberals...

I especially like the "D-cup" nursing bras with the ashtray attached to the middle so you could use your wife's bust as an ashtray. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned family values? :evilfrown:

[Canuckistanian]

78. They were popular in the 70's

Damned PC Nanny Statists.....

[bloom]

5. If you don't want to sound like a freeper

I suggest you create a different term than "Nanny-statism". I consider the term to be sexist in nature.

[karlrschneider]

10. What would you call it, then?

:wtf:
jesusfuckingchrist...

[QC]

11. Childcare Professional State? n/t

[datasuspect]

102. "chilcare professional statism"

that is fucking hilarious.

[PVnRT]

110. Zing!

n/t

[Selatius]

19. Just call it authoritarianism.

Nothing says stupidity like repeating Prohibition.

This will create two problems:

1. An extra burden on the police force
2. Drug dealers selling tobacco in addition to other drugs like marijuana.

[datasuspect]

103. no shit

you know what the biggest contraband money maker is in prisons that don't allow smoking?

not heroin

not grass

not cocaine




CIGARETTES and TOBACCO.

five bucks for one square. you can get shanked over a butt now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Continuum-of-Care Establishmentarianism? n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

45. Oh, that's VERY good.

I might start using that one, do you mind?

:kick:

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. You'll have to pay me royalties. Have your people call my people. (grin)

Just kidding. Feel free! :evilgrin:

[bloom]

35. You could call it "public-do-gooderism"

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x246262#246291



"Private rights" people tend to not worry about sexism and racism and other isms - if concern for others gets in the way of their "private rights". As a consequence - they tend to be "anti-PC". These are all just trends of course.

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. I hardly think the "Southern Cavalier outlook" is anti-community and pro-individual rights.

The Cavaliers were all about using the powers of the State to promote property rights and crush the individual rights of the non-propertied class.

Just like Bush. That's what Bush means (and what "nanny state liberals" in urban areas) mean when they talk about creating an "ownership society" where homeowners and stockholders have more of a stake.

They get the carrot and everyone who is not in the "ownership society" (people supposedly subject to the "pathologies of the lower class", like, ahem, drug addiction) get the stick.

Both North and South in the post you cited have a range of outlooks on community versus the individual. You seem to come down on the side of a Puritan-style communitarianism. Unfortunately, that has been proven to be stifling, which is why religious Americans repudiated Puritanism in the Great Awakening.

Communitarianism, as construed in opposition to individual rights such as the right to smoke, has destroyed every utopian community on the left that has experimented with it.

[madmusic]

44. Good, God, Ya'll, this explains everything!

Fuck the Bill of Rights if destroying it is for the collective good. It is reverse discrimination at its finest, or worst, or most sinister. Because someone was repressed, no one deserves rights any longer. What are the roots of this deep-seated resentment, no, hate, against personal liberty? It also explains this no smoking law. The collective, the tyranny of the majority is all that is legitimate. Anyone, anything, unique is outcast. This is what the nanny anti-smoking campaign is all about, and it is what your anti-sexist ghost hunt is all about.

Amazing. It finally makes sense. It is this obsessive striving for some collective kumbaya where all are the same, no one is unique, no one is ever offended, in short, Nietzsche's "Last Man," where all are alike. Clones in paradise.

Yuck.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. If you think like that, madmusic, you'll Never get to "The Island"!

(gratuitous "The Island" reference)

Besides, I have determined that the Three Laws of Robotics do not prohibit me from censoring your post. Humans must be protected for their own good.

:evilgrin:

[madmusic]

58. You mean there's another... different... island?

Where the hell is this?

And now there are Three Laws of Robotics. Who passed that legislation? Can't. Keep. Up. With. All. The. Laws.

More laws! More laws! Hurry before it's too late! Panic, panic, panic, panic, panic.

[Leopolds Ghost]

61. Michael Clarke Duncan: "I don't want my kidney removed! I wanna go to the Island!"

You promised me I won the lottery! I don't want to dieeeee...

Fun movie.

[Nobody]

89. Did it seem to you

that the people taking out the organs weren't using anesthesia? How else would Michael Clark Duncan have leapt off the table and tried to escape?

A biochemist friend of mine mentioned that removing organs under such circumstances would cause such physical trauma that the organs would be more likely to be rejected.

"The Island" was better than THX1148 that the critics claimed it was stealing from.

[Jed Dilligan]

47. On the contrary, bloom,

my absolute opposition to all forms of Prohibition is based on my love of community, and the sadness I feel at families torn apart by the state's "do-good" apparatus.

[noamnety]

85. some thoughts on the phrase

"men apparently occupy one to two percent of domestic childcare positions." http://www.themanny.com/faq.htm#howlong

It's funny it's only used for negative associations; not sure (other than females = bad) why it isn't used when we're talking about positive things that protect us. Nobody complains about safety regulations that they LIKE as being part of a nanny state. So corporate pollution rules that protect us, or FDA drug testing, or testing for mad cow disease or universal health care isn't referred to in those terms (except by neocons who oppose those things). Imagine someone referring to getting body armor for the troops as being part of a nanny state - it wouldn't happen, eh? Why is that?

[madmusic]

124. That's a damn good question...

Here's an attempt at an answer, though someone else may be able to answer it better.

corporate pollution rules that protect us,

Corporations, by and large, could care less about individual liberty. They have one motive and one concern: the profit margin. What's more, they have the ability to be very dangerous and can destroy rivers, forests and other large masses of land, and history proves they don't mind doing so. So is it hypocritical to say corporations should have a smoking section for smokers and still not pollute as an industry? Non-smokers can move away from the smoking section if the smoke bothers them, but those downriver may not be able to move, or may not be aware of the danger. What's more, the Bill of Rights was written for personal liberty against tyranny. An individual is not able to instill tyranny. A corporation can.


or FDA drug testing,

This is basically the same. The FDA was a reaction to dangerous and misleading food and drugs. It too has gone to the extreme and is sometimes part of the nanny state. But some of the laws were due to mass murders, on the personal scale of smoking, something like if a smoker intentionally blew smoke in a non-smokers face repeatedly. Indeed, that smoker could probably be cited for a public nuisance charge, and if he/she knew the smoke was potentially deadly to the non-smoker and yet kept following the non-smoker around and blowing smoke in his/her face, and the non-smoker died from it, the smoker could theoretically be charged with manslaughter. And maybe convicted. So the smoker has the liberty to smoke, and the non-smoker has the liberty to move away from it. Both have liberty. Someone who buys a drug with a dangerously misleading label does not have the same choice as the non-smoker.

or testing for mad cow disease

Again, this testing is to protect the individual, not constrict his/her liberty. What freedom fighter wants mad cow disease? Not too many.

or universal health care isn't referred to in those terms

Same here. A healthy person and one who choses to be healthy are more free to experience liberty. Some complain that they don't want to pay for someone else's health care, especially if that someone is, say, a smoker. That costs too much, and costs a lot more. Not only that, health problems from smoking are self inflicted. Why should someone else pay for that with their taxes? That's a tough one to answer, but for one, I'd answer that the healthier the individual, the healthier the society, and the smoker deserves the same protections for the same reason the most heinous criminal deserves the same Constitutional protections as the innocent.

Imagine someone referring to getting body armor for the troops as being part of a nanny state

Again, part of personal liberty. A dead solider isn't free.

As an endnote:

In 21st century American politics, there is considerable confusion over the meaning of the term "liberal". Beginning in the early 1990s, Republicans have made a concerted effort to change the meaning of the term, by a method called "framing". <5> Instead of arguing against liberal beliefs, "framing" attempts to change the meaning of the word in the public consciousness, so that a belief in equal rights for all Americans is framed as "special rights for homosexuals", a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is framed as "soft on crime", and a belief in freedom of religion is framed as "hatred of Christians". <6> This has been successful to such an extent that the term "liberal" has become stigmatized and is now generally avoided by those running for office; "progressive" is now often used instead of "liberal". Although the two are related, they are really distinct political ideologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_liberalism

I'd say the nanny state does its own framing.

[Irreverend IX]

129. Nanny-statism is about protecting people from _themselves_.

The "nanny" bit comes in when the state takes on the role of pulling its helpless child-citizens away from anything that might do them harm. It has nothing to do with protecting people from pollution, unhealthy additives in food and other things that they have no control over.

[mongo]

153. Note to Bloom

Please, PLEASE stop being "concerned" for me...I like my life as it is.

[omega minimo]

51. "The Man Is At The WINdow, The Man Is At The WINdow"

[Megahurtz]

170. Laaaaa- hahahahaha!!!

:rofl:

[wtmusic]

16. Nannies can only be women?

That's rather sexist, I must say :shrug:

[bloom]

24. Why don't you get back to me

when half of the people who raise children full time are men.

[wtmusic]

25. By excluding us with your definition of "nanny"

how are we supposed to break through the glass floor?

[bloom]

27. Go for it - I'm not stopping you.

[wtmusic]

28. But you're one of the special open-minded ones

who believes in assigned servitude...my wife is the closed-minded "everybody does their share" type.

Sheesh.

[bloom]

36. I have no idea what you're talking about. nt

[stepnw1f]

173. Lol... He Doesn't Either

Now stop oppressing him! :crazy:

[madmusic]

30. You owe me a computer screen!

:rofl:

[datasuspect]

104. isn't a mother different than a nanny?

you seem like you are looking for a way to be offended.

[madmusic]

31. No gender in the definition

nanny.

Inflected Form(s): plural nannies
Etymology: probably of baby-talk origin
: a child's nurse or caregiver

EDIT: so the nanny word police might be the Etymology Agency.

[bloom]

37. So you think of men and women equally

when it comes to nannying and care-giving - and nursing presumably. Well - good for you.

[MercutioATC]

43. You've hired a nanny that nurses???

Damn. Must be one hell of a temp agency you've found...

[madmusic]

52. Actually, no, I think of an old hag.

But that's some dark childhood nightmare stuff and is neither here nor there.

[Megahurtz]

171. Rofl!

:rofl:

[Irreverend IX]

18. I consider language police to be fascist in nature. nt

[Starbucks Anarchist]

...

:rofl: :toast:

[bloom]

26. People who are against sexist language

have nothing to do with fascism. Nice try though.

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. You object to the term nanny-state more than the reality it describes.

Are you one of those people who supported banning metal jungle gyms and fencing off wooded areas?

[bloom]

39. No - that wasn't one of my bandwagons. nt

[parasim]

54. But a total ban on the use of a legal product is.

...i'm guessing....

[Jed Dilligan]

49. There's been some backlash against this crap, finally

Who was it that said "Better a broken arm than a broken spirit"? Children become fat and depressed under this regime of "protection"--two surefire killers if you ask me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. Don't forget the trend toward first-person-shooter video game addiction.

Scientists have said that studies have shown kids that are trapped in the house (because their neighborhoods are not walkable and their parents don't feel safe letting them beyond the end of the cul-de-sac without adult supervision) become "addicted" to video games and don't go out much.

Violent, "first-person-shooter" games are especially addictive because they get people's endorphins up. So they've crowded out other software on the market.

For the rest of us stay-at-home types, Internet blogging is our Nicorette.

[madmusic]

22. There ya go!

And for those self righteous folks who don't smoke? They aren't off the hook, either.

There's the word police to deal with them.

Armed with a tape recorder, the word police prowl.

That about covers everybody, but we knew it would come to this.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. You forgot about the guy who fixes things without a permit. You haven't caught him yet.

("Brazil" movie reference)

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gollygee]

87. It bothers me that he used "leftist" with it

Republicans don't want a nanny state? They pass or try to pass an awful lot of laws that involve getting into people's personal business.

[johnnie]

88. A nanny can be either gender

What's sexist about it? Or do you think only women can be a nanny?

[sendero]

98. Oh brother...

... nanny-statism is the perfect description of this nonsense. Nannies are not all female.

[ProfessorGAC]

99. There Can Be Male Nannies, No?

A nanny is a job requiring taking care of other people's children. So, how is it sexist? Honestly, i don't get how it is. It's descriptive of a profession.
The Professor

[Mythsaje]

6. Oh, goody!

Let's let the "it's for your own good" crowd gain some more momentum.

[wtmusic]

7. A rabid anti-smoker

says this is stupid.

Let's hope Belmont is also the First U.S. City to Require that Toilet Paper Be Dispensed Top-Over, Not Bottom-Under. :crazy:

[Dhalgren]

17. Come on, now! Everyone knows that toilet paper goes

under the bottom! :evilgrin:

[wtmusic]

20. I try to keep an open mind

but that is just SICK :silly:

[Dhalgren]

23. Thank you! Thank you! I'm here all week!

[notadmblnd]

100. Not mine....

it's sits on a shelf next to the toilet, because every time I put it on the dispenser (no matter whcih way), the whole damn thing somes off when it's pulled on and rolls all over the floor.

This I think is a great hazzard, a person could break their arm falling if the TP gets tangles around their feet while rolling on the floor. In fact, the more I think about it... I think we should lobby for shelves to enacted into law for every toilet in America. Can't be too careful you know... Look how many people wont' live forever if this isn't acted on immediately! :sarcasm:

[Dhalgren]

107. Another senseless toilet paper roll dispenser fatality...

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Well, New York just passed a law requiring mom n' pop restaurants to change their menus

To make sure there are no trans-fats on the menu, thereby solving the problem of obesity.

DC passed a law making it "health code" to have two bathrooms (and in some cases, enclosed trash rooms) in every public space, no matter how small, thereby putting all manner of small businesses out of business. No shared restrooms allowed.

That's why "people shop at malls" -- the nanny-state laws are designed to protect enclosed, suburban spaces.

This issue of freedom and the overbearing regulation and disappearance of public space is a serious issue of study in the field of urban planning with lots and lots of research behind it. For an introduction, read Mike Davis' "City of Quartz".

[madmusic]

63. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle

This is another one I found the other day. Haven't read it yet.

Book Description
This book is about the complex relationship between fear, danger, and the law. Cass Sunstein argues that the precautionary principle is incoherent and potentially paralyzing, as risks exist on all sides of social situations and there is no 'general' precautionary principle as such. His insight into The Laws of Fear represents a major statement for the contemporary world from one of the most influential political and legal theorists writing today.

http://www.amazon.com/Laws-Fear-Precautionary-Principle-Lectures/dp/0521615127/

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. Interesting. I'll have to check it out.

Sounds like a great counterpoint to "Defensible Space" and the litigous society.

One of the most telling aspects of all this is the case (don't remember where I read it) of an asylum for the developmentally disabled, an open campus.

The campus was bisected by a lovely stream, with a pedestrian bridge.

One day, a person fell off / committed suicide from the bridge.

The institution asked their lawyer "shoud we fence in the bridge"?

The lawyer said absolutely not, because the way civil courts and insurance companies worked, they would be MORE liable if they fenced in the bridge and someone went over to the side of the wooded ravine and jumped in.

In the eyes of the court,
it would "prove they were aware of the potential danger of someone falling in the stream."

If they fenced in the bridge, the insurance or courts would make them fence in the entire ravine, at great expense to the environment and budget,

the next time they had a settlement.

That's why when contractors are fixing up your old house, they'll advise you if it ain't broke don't touch it, because then remediation requirements kick in (if the contractor tries to fix anything old, he is forced by building code requirements to replace it -- forcing the contractor to remove asbestos in the house, even if it's not a danger; removal of cast iron pipes, removal of this, removal of that -- but oddly, the contractor is obliged to replace them with carcinogenic furan-emitting PVC, and formaldehyde-emitting carpet and particle board -- the source of that "new carpet smell" which gives a lot of people allergies and causes more health problems than asbestos.)

[madmusic]

74. The law of unintended consequences.

Part of every law, and of course usually ignored by legislatures. It's almost as if the only safe way to live is if paralized, but then there's the potienal for bed sores.

Another and one of my favorites is The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things by Barry Glassner. Simple, fast read, but packed with almost laughable example and statistics.

From Publishers Weekly

In this oddly comforting audiobook, Glassner (Derailing Democracy) deconstructs many commonly held beliefs about the threats of the modern world and aims to expose the media's role in keeping citizens fearful. Frightened citizens, he posits, make better consumers and more easily swayed voters. In a methodical fashion, he raises a series of public safety threats—the prevalence of road rage, middle-class heroin addiction and husband abuse, to name just a few—and then systematically tries to strike them down with statistics. More provocative are later chapters when he attempts to debunk such modern phenomena as Gulf War Syndrome and illnesses caused by breast implants. Glassner's delivery is serious but not emotionless; he keeps an even keel most of the time, but emotion does seep into his voice, most notably when talking about gun control. His reading style stands in sharp contrast to filmmaker Michael Moore, whose apparently improvised introduction is passionate and compelling; in fact, Glassner, who was featured in Moore's film Bowling for Columbine, sounds a bit dull coming right after Moore. But he is clearly a man on a mission, and even though many listeners might disregard some of his explanations as oversimplifications, virtually everyone will leave this book with a more realistic, guardedly optimistic world view.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465014909/

[wtmusic]

75. Something odd about that story

Plaintiff's attorney, in a case like that, would certainly dig up the fact that someone had died falling off the bridge (whether they put the fence up or not) and show the asylum was aware of a potential danger.

Litigation can be extremely destructive to small business, to careers, to good people with a stroke of bad luck.

It has also become an extremely effective "invisible policeman" when traditional law enforcement protections fall short.

Fortunately it still comes down to eleven people in a room and some common sense.

[youthere]

108. Here here!

As a fellow anti-smoker...this is going too far.
BTW..It should be bottom under you fascist swine.:evilgrin:

[karlrschneider]

9. Fucking morons.

:grr: :mad:

[MoseyWalker]

12. Every law that is passed these days

is for the simple purpose of creating money for the city/county/state. Period. They count on people to have some type of moralistic outrage against something, and push it for years until it passes.

Money. It's all about money.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. Read up on "ratables" and "cap rates", Moseywalker.

If you want to know how our state and local government is run for the interest of wealthy homeowners who believe that government exists to "protect" their lifestyle. They have created an actual, real legal fiction known as the "right" not to be disturbed by activities they find offensive. The most common use of ratables, which is a mathematical formula used to determine whether a facility, building, or person is desirable, based on his/her/its NET contribution to the tax base. Poor people (and people with large families) are utterly excluded by the formula, which is standard nationwide and used by every professionally managed municipality, including yours (if you live in an urban area). It is all about protecting property values.

Or as MIT put it: "Zoning: Control Who Lives In Your Community"
(a handbook for municipalities)

[Vorta]

56. Don't forget the big corporations. They can afford all this regulatory BS.

Ever heard of McDonald's challenging anything other than a sign ordinance?

[Selatius]

13. This sounds like Prohibition unlearned.

My advice is to let people smoke, but they should have to pay a high sales tax on it. The money generated from that should only be earmarked for health care expenses. If you want to burden the health care system with cancer and other diseases related to smoking, then you ought to pay to clean up the mess you helped create.

[Beelzebud]

14. That's all we need. Another prohibited drug, and a black market for it.

I hate control freaks, right or left. Butt out of our private lives!

[madmusic]

67. Some cities and towns used to have intricate tunnels under them.

Drug and people smuggling and all. Well, the freeptards wanted reactionary, we'll give them reactionary.

Here's too the good old days when they had real live smoking dens.

:toast:

[sam sarrha]

15. with NO Definitions or even a Draft it is premature Excitation for smokers to get pissed off here..

they are just trying to stir some controversy up to sell papers...

[Vorta]

21. Belmont? You must be kidding.

I used to live in the Catania Regency in Belmont. Everyone there smoked. All the people down at that dive, God I can't remember the name of it, come to think of it, they were all dives and all the people smoked. That awful Hawaiian motif place, and the one with the world's longest bar and oldest cocktail waitresses (though they did look good), ohhhhhhh Antones! That was the name of the real dump.

God you leave a place for twenty years or so and it just goes to hell in a handbasket. Yuppies.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. Sounds funky. Is this an LA suburb?

I remember a great on-line guide to tacky mid-century modern restaurants.

[Vorta]

114. South of San Francisco.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warpy]

32. Yeah, this is nuts, to a point

I have a severe allergy to tobacco smoke, so I'm glad my own city has banned it indoors. For the first time in my life, I can eat in a restaurant, and although my clubbing days are over (not that they started), I could go to one if I wanted to.

However unpleasant it is for me to catch a whiff of smoke outdoors, though, it doesn't set my allergies off. Anybody who bans it outdoors is overreaching, to say the very least. The same goes for cars, even though I hate to see people with the windows rolled up and kids in the car as they fill it with black clouds of cig smoke.

I can see banning it indoors at senior living facilities. Lots of those old folks have severe cardiopulmonary disease. Second hand smoke IS bad for them.

Banning it outdoors is just plain nuts. I know parents who smoke outside so they don't expose their kids to it. This law will make them smoke at the kids.

[slaveplanet]

119. I have a different opinion on this:

I can see banning it indoors at senior living facilities. Lots of those old folks have severe cardiopulmonary disease. Second hand smoke IS bad for them.

What about first hand smoke?

My 97 year old grandmother lives in an assisted living home, a very expensive one. She has smoked since the 1930's. Right now she can't barely see, so no internet, no newspaper, She also can't barely hear, so nix the radio and television too. She's outlived most of her friends there, and the younger residents are too fit for her to keep up with, so no more card games (she can't see, but a few years back, she could at least socialize...not anymore). She went anemmic because she's so stubborn she didn't want the provided food, she wanted her own but was making poor nutrition choices.
All she has to look forward to are family visits, those little chocolates, and her 5 cigarettes a day...which the doctor has reccomended NOT taking away, the depression would be worse than any health benefits at her advanced age. It's also a northern climate, there's no way in hell she's stepping outside.

She's not the only one at the home in this predicament.

[Warpy]

137. Hell, I know that, I've worked in nursing homes

and that trip out to the porch in a wheelchair so the resident could smoke was one of the best parts of the day for him/her, along with that first cup of coffee in the morning.

There's no way I'd deprive any smoker at any age, unless they're on oxygen. They just need to do it outdoors.

[slaveplanet]

139. in the summertime

she does, when she can.

But the other 7 months out of the year, the windchill and 30 degree temperatures make this an impossibility.

Hopefully she won't be bothering others very much longer, too bad she isn't a dog we could just take her to the pound and be done with the problem. :sarcasm:

[Warpy]

152. The nursing home I worked in was in New England. Most smokers

were on the first floor. We could bundle them up, set them in the sunshine (which was good for them) and fetch them 10 minutes later. Yes, it was a bit more work for us, but good for them all around and didn't put patients with severe COPD and other problems in danger.

Even in cold weather, it worked, sunny front porch in the AM, sunny back porch in the PM.

[slaveplanet]

154. She is not a patient

in a nursing home, these are private assisted living apartments, It cost thousands of dollars per month to live there. Residents require no medical service from the staff, but there is nursing help and meals close by if needed.
If they dared try what you are suggesting, my aunt, who happens to be extremely wealthy, would sue their asses off, or remove her from that environment. There is no sunny front porch, and only a tree covered back barbecue gathering area, there is however, wind and cold and huge snowdrifts. The porch is of no help to her after dark, summer or winter.

Not everyone who smokes for 70+ years automatically needs a 24/7 nurse pumping oxygen into them, she has surprised everyone, especially the doctors.

[Warpy]

158. Jeanne Calment didn't bother to stop smoking until

the age of 117 and still made it to 122. Because some people beat the statistics doesn't mean statistics are useless. Most long term smokers die from it. My own mother made it to 94, gasping for every breath she took for the last 25 years she lived. Trying to live with people puffing smoke at her would likely have killed her off far sooner.

I've always wished there could be some negative air pressure lounge set up in hospitals and nursing homes for smokers. They have those rooms, but they're used for TB and chicken pox patients. They need facilities for smoking patients. Those nicotine patches I fought to get them just took the edge off.

If there's a forced hot air system in that facility, she's forcing smoke onto the unwilling. If the heat is electric or by hot water radiator and she can keep her door shut, she shouldn't have a problem.

[Greyhound]

185. I think you've stated their hidden agenda right there.

All the fantasy BS about how dangerous second hand smoke is, blah, blah, blah. I'm not hearing about the great exodus of the health dictators to the countryside, yet that is exactly what they should do if they were really concerned about air-borne pollutants. Living in any large city is far worse than directly smoking, let alone smelling someone else's smoke.

No, this is simply about exerting power over others, the onward march to the ultimate police state.

[Odin2005]

41. Nanny-Statism of any political stripe sucks, period.

Oh, and the people who think the term "Nanny State" is sexist need to get a life besides inventing faux outrages.

[NorthernSpy]

48. there are health nazis throughout the political spectrum...

But as a lefty, I do make a special effort to speak against things like this. I don't want anyone to get the idea that the program of the Left is to bully and scapegoat smokers or fat people, or whoever the socially-approved hate target for today happens to be.

[RiverStone]

65. Would you ban ALL drunk drivers from driving? ....YES!

So whats the difference?

Smoking kills who ever is in its path, indiscriminately. So do drunk drivers.

Left or right, it is about protecting lives!

[MercutioATC]

70. Would you ban overeating? Poor stress management? Refusal to exercise?

Again, who, other than the smoker, is harmed if somebody smokes in their car?

[RiverStone]

72. No one dies from 2nd hand overeating....

And how many times have you seen kids pumping out 2nd hand smoke, with the driver smoking and the windows rolled up?

We are not talking about banging down the doors to private dwellings. Thats no ones damn business.

Though anything that can be done (in a public setting) to protect my lungs, and my kids lungs is something I'd vote for anytime. In other words, we don't wanna breath your fucking smoke!

[MercutioATC]

73. Nobody dies from secondhand smoke in a car occupied by only the driver.

Why ban it?

[RiverStone]

76. Geez, we could keep this going....

Seat belt laws, helmet laws also apply to a car/motorcycle occupied by "only the driver."

And truth told, I don't give a shit whether someone is wearing a helmet or not on their Harley. That won't hurt my kids.

We can debate the merits (or not) of this till the smoked cows come home, but I will ALWAYS advocate against something that is PREVENTABLE which could hurt my (or anyones) kids, bystanders, or aged grandmother. Thats 2nd hand smoke. :nuke:

[parasim]

77. Well, no... but... kids of overeating parents...

are more likely than not to become overeaters themselves, perhaps... Hmmm?

So you'd vote to eliminate the gasoline-powered engine in cars then?

[tpsbmam]

95. An argument could be made that people do die as a result.....

It's no secret that our medical system is broken. More and more Americans are uninsured every day. When that happens, hospitals are left with unpaid medical bills, ERs are clogged as people use it for all of their medical care, etc etc. Many, many hospitals are short-staffed in many areas (nursing included) so there are increasingly limited resources to go around.

Obesity causes huge medical problems -- heart problems, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, blood clots, some cancers, joint problems, etc etc. As our system becomes more and more burdened, limited resources are applied to caring for everyone with self-induced medical problems. That goes for smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyles, alcohol abuse, and all of the other things that we do to ourselves.

In terms of $$$ that is spent treating obesity-related problems, we spend at least $75 billion a year treating obesity related problems, with much of that being spent by the taxpayer. That's $75 billion that could be spent elsewhere in our broken system. If we took out ALL self-induced health problems, we could bloody well insure everyone in the country and our system would be less burdened. We use up most of our resources on people with self-induced health problems, obesity included.

I worked in hospitals for many years. TONS of resources are spent on people whose medical problems are due to their behavior. And there are thus fewer resources to go around. Ever been to a busy ER and had to wait hours? At least half of the people in that busy ER are there because of behavior-induced problems.

I've seen people die because they can't get treatment or they can't get it fast enough. Every single person that uses up limited resources because of self-induced health problems contributes to that, not just smokers.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

112. cars aren't good for your lungs. neither are a million of them

and your car affects me in my house.

do you drive?

[Greyhound]

147. The very best thing you can do to protect your kids lungs is to get out of the city.

Oh, but that would require a sacrifice on your part, and after all, maintaining your salary is much more important than the health of your children, isn't it?

To reach the conclusion that cigarettes are even remotely as harmful as living in any large city can only be reached by ignoring the facts.

[madmusic]

71. What's next then?

The death penalty for someone who lights up because they are a murderer?

It's not really about smoking and protecting people anyway, any more than calling Nanny State sexist is about saving lives. It's about power and control and the perfect little state with a picket fence around it.

[JHB]

94. We ALREADY ban drunk drivers from driving

And no, smoking does NOT "kill who ever is in its path", not anything like a drunk driver behind the wheel can.

This sort of false equivalence is exactly the problem at hand.

[Greyhound]

146. Wrong again. Smoking does not "[kill] who ever is in its path, indiscriminately"

It greatly increases the likelihood that the smoker will develop a wide range of illnesses, and second hand smoke slightly increases the risk for illness or disease, but it does not kill whoever is in its path. Another example of people misunderstanding scientific language.

correlation != causation

[Starbucks Anarchist]

169. What?

A drunk driver only has to hit you once to kill you.

One-time exposure to cigarette smoke won't kill anybody not hooked up to an oxygen tank.

[justice1]

79. An example of the absurdity in Omaha.

If you see Juan M. Flores, wanted for murder or Angel Cruz, wanted for sexual assault of a child please call 444-7867.

If you witness someone light up a cigarette in a bar, call 911, per the Omaha Police Chief.

[Vidar]

80. Prohibition was such a success the first time, let's try it again.

[Maraya1969]

82. Now people with KIDS are gong to smoke INSIDE!

Where they were protecting the kids from smoke before the law now makes their kids breathe it.

[w4rma]

83. This is indeed a very very very very dumb bill. (nt)

[LeftishBrit]

84. This sounds absolutely counter-productive...

because if people can't smoke anywhere except at home, then they're MORE likely to smoke at home near their children.

I do support some restrictions on smoking in enclosed public places; but this is going to crazy extremes.

[krispos42]

86. Think how many lives would be saved by making living in LA illegal?

God, the air there is terrible. It's like smoking twenty packs a day (rough guesstimate) simply breathing in LA air. You can actually SEE the air, which is NOT a good thing!

How many thousands of people die every year as a cumulative result of breathing in LA air? Hell, I'd take up smoking if I lived in LA just so I could have a filter between my lungs and the LA air! Not even counting the violent crime.

I mean, if you're going to make it illegal to pollute one's own lungs, then you'd better arrest everybody in LA, Denver, Houston, etc., for daring to breathe unclean air!

[Warren Stupidity]

91. Which leftists?

I agree that this is stupid nanny state bullshit, but exactly which leftwing party do the folks running the government of Belmont belong to?

[Bridget Burke]

101. I've been looking for the political affiliations of Belmont's city government...

But have had no luck so far. I doubt that such a prosperous bedroom community would elect a "Leftist" mayor & city council. Is Democratic now synonymous with "Leftist"?

A Californian in a recent "Southerners are all ignorant redneck Republicans" thread explained that Schwarzenegger is actually a "good" Republican. Perhaps Belmont elected more of these Good Republicans; here in Texas, that breed has been extinct for years.

Will this proposal go through if the people of Belmont protest? The elected officials want to be re-elected, don't they?

And--"Nanny State" is a phrase those Rightists love to use.

[stepnw1f]

176. BINGO...

[Nobody]

92. Scratch this and find insurance companies

looking for reasons to deny you health benefits.

A few years ago, I was appalled to see stories about two comapanies (one was in MI) that required employees to submit to random nicotine tests. If nicotine was detected, the employee would be fired. This company had a no smoking policy and that included in your own home. The company said that it would be cheaper to offer health benefits if they could guarantee that their employees were all non-smokers. The benefits themselves weren't necessarily better than those offered at other companies.

Smoking does cause lung cancer. Secondhand smoke also causes lung cancer. Allergies to cigarette smoke exist. Nicotine is addictive and very hard to kick.

I don't oppose legislation requiring ventilation to (some less dangerous) parts per million, but I do oppose any kind of law or general practice that limits your right to smoke in your own home, car, out on the street, etc.

[GeorgeGist]

93. But no doubt...

Belmont will gladly allow tobacco to be sold.

[treestar]

97. How can they expect to enforce such a thing?

12 million illegal immigrants still here, and they can't even make a dent in that. Yet they're now going to create another several million "criminals?"

The idea that the government has endless resources to make everything perfect is starting to take over to a ridiculous degree.

[frustrated_lefty]

106. I hope

the day comes when I have to give a politico cpr and the breath of life. Will be damned sure to take a puff between each breath.

We have mercury in the water, PCBs in the seafood, prions in the beef which we aren't allowed to test, global warming making the world uninhabitable, depleted uranium spreading as dust in the air, but, oh god, help! Call in the swat team, John Doe next door may be having a cigarette!

Can't we deal with obesity first?

[Clark2008]

109. I'm glad I don't live in California.

Where are apartment dwellers supposed to smoke if they so CHOOSE (choice, being the operative word here).

Good lord.


P.S. And what are they going to do if people habitually (no pun intended) break the law? I mean, people are going to sneak and smoke - like children.

Are they seriously going to lock up people for smoking in their apartment? I somehow think that won't hold up in a court of law.

[Megahurtz]

174. They'll have to smoke

under the Stove fan. LOL! :smoke:

[Greyhound]

182. Fines, baby! Fines! That is why this gets so much play.

Nothing like another revenue stream to get the politiwhores to jump on the bandwagon du jour.

Funny thing is that the same people that advocate this idiocy are the sam one's that will squeal the loudest when the status quo enforcers come for their foibles.:rofl::banghead:

[depakid]

111. Stupid people make stupid policy

And people like these council members have proven themselves to be colossally stupid.

Almost childlike in their reasoning.

Far from being "nanny staters," these folks just can't seem to wrap their minds around larger issues, and so gravitate toward unsophisticated either/or type measures. Reminds me of some of the sorts of people I've seen who sit on homeowners associations, who invite needless conflict.

[dogday]

113. Already unconstitutional if allowing people who own

their own homes, as opposed to those who rent, the privilege of smoking in their homes... Courts will have a field day with this one....

[porphyrian]

116. It shows how fucked up their priorities are.

A single diesel semi pollutes their air in a day more than a smoker in a week, and let's not talk about energy plants. Organochlorides are now so prevalent in our ecosystem that traces can be found in everything we eat and drink. Yet they outlaw smoking at home because it may irritate the neighbors. While I don't have a problem with local movements, that's our Democracy, I have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people, and I'm glad they don't live near me.

[Marnieworld]

120. What about all of the people who don't live in Single family detached homes?

This is an assault on the poor who generally live in apartments or row homes or at least more cramped situations. This is absurd. Do they think that smoke will go through walls?

And as far as outside is concerned.. that's just silly. In your own car you can't decide your environment? Ban fast food if you want to help people. And really should this be the job of government?

[bluestateguy]

121. Of course

It's your typical limousine liberal elitism. The rich are free to smoke in their own homes, but all you little people in apartments and condos will have to follow the law.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

125. if our health care system ever gets socialized

the way many people on this board want...it is inevitable that ALL cities will adopt similiar legislation.

[LeftishBrit]

142. Most countries with socialized health care do NOT have such draconian legislation!

[Scriptor Ignotus]

179. not yet...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=smoking+bans+paris&btnG=Google+Search

[tabasco]

156. That's quite a ridiculous thing to say.

Care to expound a bit?

Ever been to Germany or France?

Try telling those people not to smoke and you'll starty a revolution.

But they have excellent national health care.

Don't US citizens deserve decent health care? Why do people against health care for Americans hate America so much?

Your post sounds like some bullshit right-wing talking point to me.

"Socialize medicine and the next thing you know you'll be marching in Lenin's birthday parade." LMAO.

Of course, the pharmaceutical companies push that propaganda hard to keep people voting against their own interests.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

180. I'll ignore your slurs against me

but I don't think I deserved such vitriol for one simple observation. I'm for nationalized health care, for the record, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to its potential "side effects". (ie having the government limit unhealthy activities)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...


Try googling "smoking bans Europe" and you'll get a better idea about why I said what I said.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

160. I can't wait to hear what evils are caused by the minimum wage and the 40hr week. -nt

[Scriptor Ignotus]

178. good point

no Democrat should ever critize ANY aspect of our main policy goals.

[bloom]

127. "Strict Father, Nanny State, And Toddlers Running Wild"

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2732111

[OregonDem]

130. Why not let people choose where there want to smoke?

If its their property let them decide whether its smoke-free or not. Its your choice to give those businesses your money or not. I don't smoke but I think what society needs to do is to learn to be more courteous rather than pass more restrictive laws. I'm not a big fan of taxes, but perhaps having only one small tax on cigarettes that would be used specifically to help those suffering from second-hand smoke would be acceptable to me. Anything more than that would be too intrusive and restrictive.

[VforVicarious]

131. how long before Rob Reiner

makes a congratulatory statement about this.

In honor of this law, I'm gonna go light up a Camel right now and enjoy the sweet, sweet cancer smoke

[Sapere aude]

132. Great another smoking tread. Listen, you can't smoke in public and not effect someone else.

How you screw in you bedroom is not the same as blowing smoke in someone's face. Stop being so damn assholeish will you?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Admit smoking is a habit that can't be controlled and that a smoker needs a fix every 10 minutes, that's why they need to smoke every place they go. Well, I quit so can they. They should get real or smoke in bubbles so other people aren't affected by their additions. Also, they should keep their damned butts off the ground. The street isn't an ashtray

[skypilot]

148. I see something occurring very consistently...

...in these smoking threads: an exaggerated, hyperbolic depiction of smokers.

A fix every 10 minutes? Need to smoke every place they go?

I know plenty of smokers--and have read posts by some on this board--who don't have a problem with banning smoking in some areas. We hardly need to smoke "every place" we go. And though there is such a thing as a "chain-smoker" most smokers don't have to light up every ten minutes. The anti-smoking crowd is determined to foster this image of smokers as a completely selfish, inconsiderate lot who don't give a damn about anyone else and who are leaving ubiquitous clouds of cigarette smoke EVERYWHERE--even outside. I guarantee you that I dodge more dog shit on the sidewalk than I do cigarette smoke. I'm sure there are smokers who are obnoxious and selfish. There are non-smokers like that as well. But this overall image of smokers that the anti-smokers are pushing sounds alot like propoganda to me. I read a post not too long ago where someone accused us of "chain-smoking in front of children". Bullshit!!!

I will say that I agree with you about cigarette butts on the ground. I NEVER flick my cigarette on the ground. You never know where a lit cigarette butt might end up. And I hate litter.

[Sapere aude]

184. I'm an x-smoker. I timed my nicotine urges, when I quit it was about every 10 minutes

The longer I didn't smoke the longer the time between urges. It was almost impossible for me to not have a smoke when the urges came. Especially when I was doing certain things like having coffee.

No matter where I was the urges came. I could not sit through a movie at a theater. Also the coughing bothered other people.

Smoking is an anti social behavior unless you live in a vacuum. And I would venture a guess that smokers would not smoke if they weren't addicted and would agree with me if the truth be known.

I really don't care if you smoke. I do care if your habit affects other people negatively. So if you can find a way to smoke and not affect other people than go right ahead.

And don't try to tell my you are not addicted to nicotine and need a fix regularly.

[skypilot]

187. Sounds to me...

...as though you are trying to judge other smokers according to how addicted you were. You couldn't sit through a movie without needing a cigarette? That's too bad. Not all smokers are that hooked. I'm certainly not. I've sat through plenty of movies without giving cigarettes a single thought. And I'm actually a bit surprised to find that your "fix every ten minutes" comment was meant literally--and it applied to you when you smoked. Quite frankly, you sound like the epitome of the newly sanctimonious ex-smoker.

[warrens]

133. The embarassing far left

If you eat goat cheese, you're oppressing goat-Americans. What a bunch of moronic whiners.

[in_cog_ni_to]

136. Anti-Smoking Fascists.

When will they ban all cars that pollute the air and kill more people than cigarettes ever could? When will ALL corporations that spew their toxic waste into the air be banned too? I want all corporations that pollute my water banned. I'm sure those are added to the ban too, right?:eyes: Total bullshit. Anti-Smoking fascists are a BIZARRE lot..

No smoking in their own fucking car? I am allergic to everyone's perfume. I want it banned. Microwaves spew radiation into my air space. I want them banned. People who drink alcohol and drive endanger me and my family...ban alcohol. Cell phone users are endangering my life when they drive and talk on the phone...BAN CELL PHONES. Where will this ever end?

[newworld]

159. It will never end.....

Fascists dont recognize personal liberties and despise personal choice. It's quite sad when the officials we elect dont represent the people.:mad:

[SOS]

140. And surely

at least half of the City Council arrived at the meeting in their emissions-exempt SUVs.

:crazy:

[Exiled in America]

145. Ban all fast food restaurants or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so sick of this nanny bullshit.

Especially when the war on smoking has more to do with the fact that its a popular target and totally IGNORES the GLARING HYPOCRISY.

The number killer in this country is not cancer. It is HEART DISEASE, and all things associated with being obsece.

Yet, for some reason its not popular to suggest that all fast food restarunts be banned. Why?

Should be ban everything else that can potentially be harmful to health? Ban all skydiving. Ban all swiming pools. Ban motorcycles. Ban the double quarter pounder with cheese.

PLEASE STOP!!!!!!

[mongo]

149. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves

and any DU'ers that agree with this law are NOT AMERICANS!

What part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do you not understand?

[mhatrw]

150. Next let's eliminate all left turns.

Or perhaps all forms of transportation other than walking.

Think of the lives we'd save!

[SOS]

157. How about a 24 hour a day helmet law for all Americans?

All US citizens must wear helmets at all times, even in the privacy of their own homes.
People slipping in the bathtub need government intervention!

[mandyky]

151. I hate smoking bans!!

Not sure I'd call it Nanny whatever though - that is a RW comment LOL

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

164. If They Succeed, I Vow To Go Down There With Cash, And Blow Smoke In Each Person's Face One At A

time.

I'll pay the fine. You have my word. I'll go down there and blow smoke right in their smug right's hating faces. I'll smile my ass off as I receive each and every ticket.

[GreenArrow]

165. The more laws, the more criminals.

This is idiotic, insulting, and certainly not behaviour indicative of a country that likes to style itself as the "freest in the world".

[Megahurtz]

167. That's almost as kooky as it gets.

:crazy:

[Throd]

172. First they came for the smokers, but I didn't smoke...

Eventually they came after the barbecues, and there was nobody left to speak for me.

Screw Belmont.

[stepnw1f]

175. I Didn't Know I, a Liberal, Wanted to Ban Smoking...

chill with the "leftist" bullshit....

[Cleita]

177. This is stupid. If the non-smokers don't want smokers in their

face, they need to provide the smokers places they can go to out of the presence of non-smokers, the elderly and children. They need to provide smokers with smoking lounges and other places for them. Didn't any of these nanny law people learn anything from prohibition?