Things That Should Be Illegal

[azurepred]

yea, but I don't know if they were as aware of the the health risks to other people taking in that cigarette smoke as they are now? I think that all non smokers that don't want to be around it ever subject themselves to it, that's why I said I have never really had a problem with it.

I'm not sure of this either, but I think that's why apartment complexes are also moving away from letting people smoke in their apartments, not that it's easy to police, but I think apartment complexes defn should, if their not already, make it aware to new tenants if they allow smoking. I can understand the right for certain businesses to allow smoking, but I think there are good reasons why most don't allow it.

 

[devilof76]

There are perfectly good reasons, but the entire movement in the late 90's to ban it was a major assault on property rights.

 

[Lejuan]

I wander if Marijuana was legal, if cigarette sells would plumit?

I don't know about sales, but can you imagine an air traffic controller or neurosurgeon out for a meal and seated in a potheads slipstream all night?

 

[azurepred]

well I don't know anything about that, I was born in 86 , but maybe in the long term, it was for the best.

 

[azurepred]

I don't know about sales, but can you imagine an air traffic controller or neurosurgeon out for a meal and seated in a potheads slipstream all night?

yea, but just because it's legal, doesn't mean that the same businesses that don't allow cigs already, would allow marijuana smoking either. It's just that marijuana doesn't have the same health risks as cigs, so more people might give up cigs even though marijuana would be like alcohol in a sense. We won't know until it does become legal, which it will in California eventually.

 

[devilof76]

They're actually close to a solid conclusion that smoking pot inhibits lung cancer.

well I don't know anything about that, I was born in 86 , but maybe in the long term, it was for the best.

People have known for decades that tobacco was dangerous. But if you think that eroding property rights for any reason is good for anyone in the long term, I have a camp in Poland I'd like to sell you.

 

[azurepred]

They're actually close to a solid conclusion that smoking pot inhibits lung cancer.



People have known for decades that tobacco was dangerous. But if you think that eroding property rights for any reason is good for anyone in the long term, I have a camp in Poland I'd like to sell you.

well it would only make sense that smoking anything for a long period of time might inhibit lung cancer. The concern isn't the people that decide to smoke, it's how that smoke effects the people around them. I don't see how anyone's property rights are being violated now .

 

[devilof76]

When you walk into a bar, you are on someone else's property. When a government says that the bar owner cannot allow people to smoke in that bar, they are taking his exclusive control over that property away from him. In effect, they are taking the property away from him. If you walk into a bar that allows smoking, and you don't want to breathe smoke, it is not your choice whether or not they allow it. Your only choice is to walk into the bar or not. Your lungs are your property; breathing in a particular space does not give you ownership of that space. By taking control over the airspace in bars, the government has effectively made that property yours, and that of anyone else who decides to walk through the door. They have stolen it from the bar owners and given it to you. Is that clear enough?

And something that inhibits, stops an action from occurring. Marijuana stops lung cancer. Sorry for your confusion.

 

[intothevoid]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm

Whatever the case may be regarding marijuana and lung cancer, from my experience seeing friends become pot addicts, it certainly cannot be a good thing for brain cells.

 

[devilof76]

I doubt anyone would dispute the potential harm to brain cells marijuana poses (not that it's a case for prohibition). The same goes for alcohol, which is considerably worse.

 

[EVILFACE]

When you walk into a bar, you are on someone else's property. When a government says that the bar owner cannot allow people to smoke in that bar, they are taking his exclusive control over that property away from him. In effect, they are taking the property away from him. If you walk into a bar that allows smoking, and you don't want to breathe smoke, it is not your choice whether or not they allow it. Your only choice is to walk into the bar or not. Your lungs are your property; breathing in a particular space does not give you ownership of that space. By taking control over the airspace in bars, the government has effectively made that property yours, and that of anyone else who decides to walk through the door. They have stolen it from the bar owners and given it to you. Is that clear enough?

And something that inhibits, stops an action from occurring. Marijuana stops lung cancer. Sorry for your confusion.

Well how are these bars property zoned? I'm sure the Government can regulate commercial zoning easier than say residential that a person owns.

 

[devilof76]

I'm only familiar enough with zoning laws to know that I don't agree with them. You either own something, or you don't. If you own it, you should be free to do with it what you wish, so long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. If the activity you undertake on your property is a hazard to your neighbors, you should not be able to do it.

That said, in the State of Maine, private clubs for which membership is a paid privilege, smoking bans are not applicable. Otherwise, if you serve food or alcohol, your property is considered a public place.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before residential areas are targeted. I think California is pretty close to banning smoking in homes where children are present.

 

[thenammagazine]

When you walk into a bar, you are on someone else's property. When a government says that the bar owner cannot allow people to smoke in that bar, they are taking his exclusive control over that property away from him. In effect, they are taking the property away from him. If you walk into a bar that allows smoking, and you don't want to breathe smoke, it is not your choice whether or not they allow it. Your only choice is to walk into the bar or not. Your lungs are your property; breathing in a particular space does not give you ownership of that space. By taking control over the airspace in bars, the government has effectively made that property yours, and that of anyone else who decides to walk through the door. They have stolen it from the bar owners and given it to you. Is that clear enough?

And something that inhibits, stops an action from occurring. Marijuana stops lung cancer. Sorry for your confusion.

The property is not wholly his to begin with. Imminent Domain pretty much states that it's the government's property and he's allowed to use it until they deem it necessary to take it back if needed, providing an insulting amount of "compensation" for it.

 

[devilof76]

That is a modern interpretation of eminent domain, and 100% fascist. It is absolutely not what the Founders intended.

Just because Donald Trump thinks he has a right to the land some old lady's house is on, doesn't make it so.

 

[thenammagazine]

That is a modern interpretation of eminent domain, and 100% fascist. It is absolutely not what the Founders intended.

Just because Donald Trump thinks he has a right to the land some old lady's house is on, doesn't make it so.

Nevertheless, the government has been using that term to acquire property for highways, road expansions, dam construction, etc.

 

[devilof76]

The Founders understanding of rights was that they were a characteristic of human identity. They were part of our nature, and they were correct. It can be proven with as much logical force as any other law of nature (even if it can't be measured, or otherwise quantified).

Any government that 'enforces' rights that have no basis in reality other than that they wish the fake rights were real, is a government of men, and not of laws derived from (a fundamental legal document that enshrines) true rights.

 

[thenammagazine]

The Founders understanding of rights was that they were a characteristic of human identity. They were part of our nature, and they were correct. It can be proven with as much logical force as any other law of nature (even if it can't be measured, or otherwise quantified).

Any government that 'enforces' rights that have no basis in reality other than that they wish the fake rights were real, is a government of men, and not of laws derived from (a fundamental legal document that enshrines) true rights.

I agree in regards to this context, but not in an overall context given that when they sat down at that table, that "characteristic of human identity" did not include women, blacks, Native Americans, etc. So even their vision was skewed.

 

[azurepred]

When you walk into a bar, you are on someone else's property. When a government says that the bar owner cannot allow people to smoke in that bar, they are taking his exclusive control over that property away from him. In effect, they are taking the property away from him. If you walk into a bar that allows smoking, and you don't want to breathe smoke, it is not your choice whether or not they allow it. Your only choice is to walk into the bar or not. Your lungs are your property; breathing in a particular space does not give you ownership of that space. By taking control over the airspace in bars, the government has effectively made that property yours, and that of anyone else who decides to walk through the door. They have stolen it from the bar owners and given it to you. Is that clear enough?

And something that inhibits, stops an action from occurring. Marijuana stops lung cancer. Sorry for your confusion.

you make it sound like smokers are being discriminated against . Smokers can smoke outside anywhere they want pretty much, I don't believe it makes a difference when someone can just take a step outside, they don't need to be allowed to smoke inside. I understand you believe the rights of the business owner are being violated, but I believe it's for the better. And yes, I forgot what inhibit meant.

 

[devilof76]

Why don't you understand that if one group of people can have their rights violated when society deems it to be 'for the best', the group of people you are part of can have its rights violated if a majority deems it proper?

 

[Jen]

I know several bar owners and they all seem to be happy for the smoking ban. They like having a business that doesn't stink. And there business has increased. It's been a good thing for them. And yes, some of them smoke too - but are ok with stepping outside to have a cigarette.

We also have private clubs here as well where smoking is allowed.