My Turn!

Status
Not open for further replies.

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
Since Three Seven has posed such interesting questions that have provoked thought, debate, and group hugs, I now feel the need to ask one.

How do you feel about drug usage and drug laws? Should drugs be legal? What do you think?

My true feelings on the subject may surprise you. Yes, I am a proud gun owner and pro death penalty, but I think the "war on drugs" is a dangerous thing to all of us.

Why? Well, if you read my signature quote things, you can probably guess that I am anti-government intrusion. (not anti-government) Our founders here in the United States felt that our rights were "inalienable". They came from our Creator. So what does that mean? Our rights do not belong to the government. THey did not give them to us, and they cannot take them away.

So what does this have to do with drugs? The Warren Court in the 1960s issued some very important civil rights rulings. However, once the "war on drugs" was declared, we have seen a steady erosion of our most basic rights. Courts now (including our Supreme Court) take the view that the end justifies the means. In other words, it doesnt matter how you found dope on the person as long as you find it. That flies in the face of 250 some odd years of Constitutional Tradition in this country.

So I am not in favor of legalizing drugs because I think that they are not harmful, etc. Not at all. I am in favor of legalizing them so that we can take our rights back from the government. They belong to all of us and no one else. All power in this country is inherent and derived from the People, not from Congress or the Supreme Court. The war on drugs has been used as the reasoning for stripping away the very foundations of our country. End that war, and we can start to recover the rights that have been stolen from us by these buffoons in robes.

I'd be interested to hear what others think. This is an issue that I struggle a lot with since, obviously, I come into contact with drug use quite a bit. It is one of those things that pulls me two different ways. I think my statement above is an artful dodge of the real issue. Should I be a politician?

:Soapbox:

Brady H.
 

three seven

(Graeme Cameron)
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
3,084
Reaction score
525
Location
Norfolk, England
Website
www.facebook.com
I personally don't do drugs. Not on moral grounds, you understand, but simply because I don't like what they've done to people I've known. I've smoked the odd joint, but I don't like the feeling of being stoned (or drunk for that matter, hence I don't drink much either.)
I also feel that there's something pretty wrong with your life if you can't have a good time without being off your face.

If someone wishes to pump themselves full of sh*t, make their life a misery and die an early death then I'm not going to oppose their right to do so. But I do mind if they break into my house, stab me and steal my TV. Or just randomly shoot me in the street. That kind of problem usually stems from crack, heroin, PCP - manufactured drugs, in other words, so I guess in my opinion you can't not have controls on them.

However, just as it's perfectly acceptable for me to pick an apple from a tree or dig up a potato, I demand the right to pluck a leaf from a marijuana plant and smoke it. If it's legal to drink yourself into a state of aggression, it should certainly be legal to smoke yourself to sleep. Provided you're not driving or operating heavy machinery, obviously.

In England (well, certainly in this part of England) you're highly unlikely to be arrested or even thrown out of a pub for smoking a joint. But it's taken years of arguments and investigations to get this far, and it's still not actually legal.
While it sounds like I'm half way my conclusion, I've actually run out of things to say. Great weather we're having, for the time of year anyway.
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
I'm not advocating one thing or another. But it simply is odd to me that alcohol is legal in this country, but not marijuana. The former does so much more harm to the body, mind and people/families... I mean, for cryin' out loud, they won't even allow medicinal use of marijuana.

So why not treat drug use like alcohol use? Over 21 only. DUI laws extended to drug use. You go to jail if you sell to minors. If you have a problem, go to detox and Drug-user Anonymous... if I want to have a beer and a joint while watching a football game, why not?

Otherwise, ban all drugs, including alcohol and nicotin.

Yeah, right, that would be the day...
 

Nivvie

Rejections, She Wrote.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
314
Reaction score
70
I come into contact with drug users a lot, either in my capacity as an embalmer or on the nightshifts I still do as a nurse to make ends meet until I qualify.


I think it's another very grey issue. Like three seven said, weed is just not a big deal here, and it should definitely be made prescribable for MS sufferers.

My big problem is with funding and crime.
I work for a nursing agency and get sent to a variety of placements, some of which are secure and full of addicts. They take up so much tax payers money, and I'm not going to even get started on the OD's that come into the hospital. The drama. The children coming to see mummy who nearly fried herself. The money spent on social workers and care for the children. The multiple problems newborns have after a gestation tainted with drugs.

All the while someone with a genuine health issue completely not of their own making languishes at the bottom of a waiting list.

I don't think addicts should be allowed to care for their own children. Not long ago a two year old boy came in after drinking his dad's methadone. He died. If you can't get yourself clean when the threat of having your children hangs over you, when can you?

Alcohol is dangerous stuff, it can cause so many mental and physical problems, but seeing as that's not going to be made illegal and time soon, then I don't see why weed shouldn't be legalised. Just not everything else.

If hard drugs were legal, crime commited to feed habits would probably escalate, although, staying illegal means that prisons and probation services are cluttered with users, so I don't know.
 

Spookster

Maiden of the Blade
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
870
Reaction score
117
Location
Waaaay down south
I was thinking the same thing Ray. MOF, hubby and I have discussed this before and we concluded it all boils down to one simple thing. $$$ M-O-N-E-Y$$$. They allow for alcohol because it is taxable, as well as nicotine. If they legalized marajuana, anyone can grow it themselves. No taxes. No $$$ for the gubment. They get testy when they aren't getting their fair share.
 

Melina

Getting better all the time
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
444
Location
My City by the Bay
Website
www.atozwordsmith.com
I don't do drugs, and I don't drink much. I am in law enforcement, my father is a retired cop and my fiance is in law enforcement. I honestly think marijuana should be legalized. It isn't anywhere near as bad as alcohol, in my opinion. You never hear of anyone getting stoned and beating the crap out of his wife and kids. You never hear of anyone smoking pot and doing anything violent. The government should regulate and tax it, just as they do alcohol and tobacco. Everybody wins--potheads rejoice, cancer patients have some relief from pain, nausea and lack of appetite, Jay Leno becomes funny, and the government makes money from it. Heroin, coke, meth, etc. are a different story, though. Those should never be legalized. They're just too dangerous.
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
Heroin, coke, meth, etc. are a different story, though. Those should never be legalized. They're just too dangerous.

I agree. These drugs are way too dangerous and addictive to be legalized. I was talking about hemp. And do you know hemp is very useful? It will solve the "tree killing" problem because they make good paper, for one thing.

And spook, the government can solve the MONEY problem by regulating the hemp industry, just as it regulates the alcohol and tobacco industries. I assume that anyone can make beer and alcohol, and grow tobacco if they want, too. But if the government imposes fines on anyone caught growing marijuana themselves, and only allow regulated growers and companies to market them... then everyone is happy.
 

rtilryarms

Crossbows and Handgonnes
Super Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
646
Age
67
Location
Fort Lauderdale
drugs

There is nothing wrong with drugs themselves; they just keep bad company.
 

WVWriterGirl

Inked Mom
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
930
Reaction score
188
Location
West Virginia
But the strict, drug enforcement-like regulation of nicotine has started. How many major cities across the US forbid indoor smoking PERIOD? I know that the large(er) city I live close to and work in has outlawed cigarette smoking indoors and anywhere on a sidewalk within fifteen feet of a "portal of ingress or egress".

Now, to me, this makes no sense what so ever. I've never heard of anyone getting "all hopped up on nicotiene" and causing a major fatal accident like a head on collision. I've never seen anyone have to go into a nicotiene treatment facility. I am free to buy cigarettes (although I pay a HEFTY tax on them) and smoke them in my car and in my home. They are a LEGAL PURCHASE. I can jive a little with not smoking in public buildings such as court houses, stores, etc. - it's the restaurants and bars that really get me rolling. The person at the table next to me is allowed to have a cocktail before or a cordial after dinner, which may (or may not) end in someone dying because of a drunk driver, but I can't light a smoke and have what I consider an enjoyable end to my meal.

My solution? Tax the **** outta alcohol the same way they do cigarettes, ban the sale of alcohol in restaurants, and have some sort of system set up so that bars can serve, oh, one alcoholic beverage per customer per visit. Wanna curb drunk driving deaths? Try that. Lay off the smokers - they're only hurting themselves, and believe me, we know all about it now. It's an informed decision that I make to smoke.

And give me back my smoking section!

WVWG
 

katiemac

Five by Five
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Yesterday
So why not treat drug use like alcohol use? Over 21 only.

Actually, I do think this is the place where the US messed up. There shouldn't be an age restriction at all -- and I don't say this because I'm underage, I really think it's the truth.

In other countries, namely France, there isn't an age limit. Kids the age of three can have all the wine they want, and you basically grow up on the stuff. There's no "need" to run around and get trashed every weekend. Sure, the occassional over drinkers happen, but I don't think it's nearly to the extent the US has in drinking problems. This isn't just about teenagers, either, it's about adults too.

However, there's no way they could revert the system now (like they ever would). There would be far too much chaos in the current generations, and the norms of our culture will still wish parents to prohibit their kids from drinking at early ages....

Oh well. That's my two cents, there just can't be anything done about it now.
 

reph

Fig of authority
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
5,160
Reaction score
971
Location
On a fig tree, presumably
Nivvie said:
If hard drugs were legal, crime commited to feed habits would probably escalate....
I usually hear the opposite argument: if hard drugs were legal, they'd be cheaper, and crime would decline because crackheads wouldn't need so much money.
 

Wandering Sensei

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
150
Reaction score
13
I am SOOO glad they're outlawing smoking in public places! Now there are a couple places where I'll actually be able to breathe. A lot of smokers seem to feel that people with lung diseases should be outlawed. Or maybe put in detention camps.
 

AncientEagle

Old kid, no need to be gentle.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
513
Location
Southern U.S.
WVWriterGirl said:
But the strict, drug enforcement-like regulation of nicotine has started. How many major cities across the US forbid indoor smoking PERIOD? I know that the large(er) city I live close to and work in has outlawed cigarette smoking indoors and anywhere on a sidewalk within fifteen feet of a "portal of ingress or egress".

Now, to me, this makes no sense what so ever. I've never heard of anyone getting "all hopped up on nicotiene" and causing a major fatal accident like a head on collision. I've never seen anyone have to go into a nicotiene treatment facility. I am free to buy cigarettes (although I pay a HEFTY tax on them) and smoke them in my car and in my home. They are a LEGAL PURCHASE. I can jive a little with not smoking in public buildings such as court houses, stores, etc. - it's the restaurants and bars that really get me rolling. The person at the table next to me is allowed to have a cocktail before or a cordial after dinner, which may (or may not) end in someone dying because of a drunk driver, but I can't light a smoke and have what I consider an enjoyable end to my meal.

My solution? Tax the **** outta alcohol the same way they do cigarettes, ban the sale of alcohol in restaurants, and have some sort of system set up so that bars can serve, oh, one alcoholic beverage per customer per visit. Wanna curb drunk driving deaths? Try that. Lay off the smokers - they're only hurting themselves, and believe me, we know all about it now. It's an informed decision that I make to smoke.

And give me back my smoking section!

WVWG

I was a heavy smoker for 30 years. I enjoyed it, and I know what addiction feels like. But now I have better sense. I don't mind if other people want to smoke, just don't make me breathe it. If you drink a cocktail at the next table while I'm enjoying my meal, that doesn't endanger my health. If you smoke a cigarette, it does. Puff away, just not where I have to share a cigarette I don't want. And please don't tell me to stay home so you can smoke where you please.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I am not very interested in drugs beyond the odd glass of wine. As far as society in general goes it must be a balance. For example taking drugs and driving is bad, but jailing both parents of minors for marijuana use is also mad. The outcomes is the important thing -- people shouldn't damage others by using drugs and the state shouldn't react disproportionately.
 

WVWriterGirl

Inked Mom
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
930
Reaction score
188
Location
West Virginia
If I drink a cocktail at the table next to you after my meal, how do you know I'm not endangering your life? What if my server/bartender doesn't know just how well-lit (no pun intended) I am, and gives me that last drink that takes me over the edge, makes me too drunk to drive and I kill someone (maybe you?) on my way home?

I would never begrudge anyone from having an enjoyable dining experience, but it seems to me that people have set out to begrudge me from having the same enjoyable experience. Before the complete ban in our town, restaurants were required to have a separate ventilation system and separate room for the smoking section. I was perfectly happy to sit in the smoking section, where my smoke wouldn't bother anyone. I'm even fine if a private restaurant or chain of restaurants desires that there is no smoking inside it (I probably won't frequent it, but I'll abide by their rules). What I take offense at is the government telling me that even though the restaurant I'm in has taken all possible and mandated precautions against my smoke offending someone, they still take the smoking section away. It's even spread to bars now (although I'm not a drinker) and the ordinance has put several establishments under. When an ordinance/law impedes on someone's ability to make a living, that's where I take issue.

By all means, tell me what I'm doing to my body by smoking. Believe me I've heard it all before, I've seen the pictures. I wouldn't force you to stand next to me when I smoke - I'm happy in my smoking section, or outside on the patio. But please, don't make me go stand in the street (as the "15 feet from a door" part seems to indicate). I'll follow the rules (albeit unhappily), but let's at least make the rules fair for all of us. The worst part about this was that it is a County Health Department rule, which means that it wasn't voted on by the public.

I understand that some disagree with me simply because I smoke. If that's the case, that's fine with me. But try to set aside that disagreement and try to look at the law objectively - it honestly isn't fair to smokers. I believe we deserve the right to enjoy our vice just as the drinkers do, and I think that both should have rules regarding thier consumption. It seems like it's a little weighted, and it's only going to get worse. I can see regulations regarding smoking in your car on the horizon...

WVWG
 

Nivvie

Rejections, She Wrote.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
314
Reaction score
70
WVWriterGirl said:
If I drink a cocktail at the table next to you after my meal, how do you know I'm not endangering your life? What if my server/bartender doesn't know just how well-lit (no pun intended) I am, and gives me that last drink that takes me over the edge, makes me too drunk to drive and I kill someone (maybe you?) on my way home?

I would never begrudge anyone from having an enjoyable dining experience, but it seems to me that people have set out to begrudge me from having the same enjoyable experience. Before the complete ban in our town, restaurants were required to have a separate ventilation system and separate room for the smoking section. I was perfectly happy to sit in the smoking section, where my smoke wouldn't bother anyone. I'm even fine if a private restaurant or chain of restaurants desires that there is no smoking inside it (I probably won't frequent it, but I'll abide by their rules). What I take offense at is the government telling me that even though the restaurant I'm in has taken all possible and mandated precautions against my smoke offending someone, they still take the smoking section away. It's even spread to bars now (although I'm not a drinker) and the ordinance has put several establishments under. When an ordinance/law impedes on someone's ability to make a living, that's where I take issue.

By all means, tell me what I'm doing to my body by smoking. Believe me I've heard it all before, I've seen the pictures. I wouldn't force you to stand next to me when I smoke - I'm happy in my smoking section, or outside on the patio. But please, don't make me go stand in the street (as the "15 feet from a door" part seems to indicate). I'll follow the rules (albeit unhappily), but let's at least make the rules fair for all of us. The worst part about this was that it is a County Health Department rule, which means that it wasn't voted on by the public.

I understand that some disagree with me simply because I smoke. If that's the case, that's fine with me. But try to set aside that disagreement and try to look at the law objectively - it honestly isn't fair to smokers. I believe we deserve the right to enjoy our vice just as the drinkers do, and I think that both should have rules regarding thier consumption. It seems like it's a little weighted, and it's only going to get worse. I can see regulations regarding smoking in your car on the horizon...

WVWG

I have nothing huge against smoking sections, but as someone who's done my time behind a bar the root of it is staff problems.
My aunt died of passive smoking due to her husband, and as I see it, it was her choice to live with him. Although at first she didn't know what was happening to her, after her first tumour she did, and she didn't kick him out or make him stop, so she not completely blame free.

We had a patient a while back who sucessfully sued her company as her passive smoking cancer was due to being trapped in an office with smokers, and that's where it all changes. For a bar to have sucessful segregation the staff would have to be given the choice not to enter that area, so even if the owner chose to remain a smoking establishment, staffing might be a problem. Plus everyone is scared of being sued, and cancer mixed with work related issues is a big payout.
 

paprikapink

Bored fanatic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
868
Location
yonder
Website
paprikapink2.blogspot.com
Years ago I was in cafe in San Francisco sipping a latte and writing when I was joined by a fellow who wanted to chat. He was a veteran drug enforcement type cop from San Diego in town on family business. I had never talked to an actual "narc" before. I asked him why drugs were illegal. Not to challenge him, I just really wanted to know. He said oh the horrors he'd seen and named a few. I asked him how much of those horrors were the direct result of the drug use, vs how much were the result of the illegal activity and if even the drug use horrors wouldn't be lessened if it were legal and regulated. He opened his mouth to answer and then just kinda froze. "Well. Now you have given me something to think about. I don't have an answer for that." I had to leave right then and we said good-by. I'm sure in the intervening years he's thought of an answer, but I've wondered since that day what it was, and if he is satisfied with it.

-pkpk
 
Last edited:

paprikapink

Bored fanatic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
868
Location
yonder
Website
paprikapink2.blogspot.com
And as for the smoking...WVWritergirl, I love ya to pieces (well, I think you're a fine writer and poster!) but while there is some chance that the boozers at the next table may run over me or fall on me, it's not a huge chance, whereas if someone is smoking near me, there is a 100% certainty that I will be coughing and choking. Eyes watering, face red. Totally unattractive. It bums me out big time because I love the smokey club ambience; I just can't handle it anymore.

Air is very important and tremendously popular. Like water. Most public and private pools have no peeing rules. The cloud of smoke is analagous to that unnerving warm spot in the pool. Although the warm spot is not implicated in any cancer studies.

-pkpk
 

Nivvie

Rejections, She Wrote.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
314
Reaction score
70
katiemac said:
Actually, I do think this is the place where the US messed up. There shouldn't be an age restriction at all -- and I don't say this because I'm underage, I really think it's the truth.

In other countries, namely France, there isn't an age limit. Kids the age of three can have all the wine they want, and you basically grow up on the stuff. There's no "need" to run around and get trashed every weekend. Sure, the occassional over drinkers happen, but I don't think it's nearly to the extent the US has in drinking problems. This isn't just about teenagers, either, it's about adults too.

However, there's no way they could revert the system now (like they ever would). There would be far too much chaos in the current generations, and the norms of our culture will still wish parents to prohibit their kids from drinking at early ages....

Oh well. That's my two cents, there just can't be anything done about it now.

Err, no. Kids of 3 cannot have all the wine they want. There is still age restrictions on the consumption and purchase of alcohol on and off premises unless accompanied by a parent. Parents are trusted to monitor their children's intake, and in some of these countries they are still fobidden to drink spirits until 18, along with beer.
My mother is Italian and I have lived in France, Italy, Germany and Finland with regards to Europe. I was given wine as a child, but it was so watered down and only with a meals, that it barely counted.
There is not a huge alcoholism in these countries as it's not the culture. Being drunk is not acceptable.
In Sweden you cannot even have the slightest drink and drive, and in Germany there are still all the restrictions and people love their beer, but there is not the level of loud addiction. Just in the same way they have a great welfare package, and you are usually better off not working, but there is so mauch shame attached to claiming it people don't usually take advantage. It's just a different way of thinking.

The need to go out and get "trashed" at weekends has a lot more to do with the life of those doing it than the age they were allowed to start doing it. In France they work an average of a 38 hour week, it's the law. They've never pushed things like the US and UK. People take 2 hour lunch breaks, the whole society is more relaxed. In the UK and US tons of people (myself included) have to work more than one job, have kids to look after and come the weekend (myself not included) an urge to blott all that away. And that 'therapy' is addictive.

It's mirrored in the US and UK obesity figures. These are glutton countries, excess is enjoyed and there is always a thirst for more of everything. There is too much of everything, and it's supply and demand. In a German supermarket there's a good selection, but not a whole isle of different toilet cleaners, a hundred different breakfast cereals.

Oh dear, wandered a bit offtopic...
 

AncientEagle

Old kid, no need to be gentle.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
513
Location
Southern U.S.
WVWriterGirl said:
If I drink a cocktail at the table next to you after my meal, how do you know I'm not endangering your life? What if my server/bartender doesn't know just how well-lit (no pun intended) I am, and gives me that last drink that takes me over the edge, makes me too drunk to drive and I kill someone (maybe you?) on my way home?

I would never begrudge anyone from having an enjoyable dining experience, but it seems to me that people have set out to begrudge me from having the same enjoyable experience. Before the complete ban in our town, restaurants were required to have a separate ventilation system and separate room for the smoking section. I was perfectly happy to sit in the smoking section, where my smoke wouldn't bother anyone. I'm even fine if a private restaurant or chain of restaurants desires that there is no smoking inside it (I probably won't frequent it, but I'll abide by their rules). What I take offense at is the government telling me that even though the restaurant I'm in has taken all possible and mandated precautions against my smoke offending someone, they still take the smoking section away. It's even spread to bars now (although I'm not a drinker) and the ordinance has put several establishments under. When an ordinance/law impedes on someone's ability to make a living, that's where I take issue.

By all means, tell me what I'm doing to my body by smoking. Believe me I've heard it all before, I've seen the pictures. I wouldn't force you to stand next to me when I smoke - I'm happy in my smoking section, or outside on the patio. But please, don't make me go stand in the street (as the "15 feet from a door" part seems to indicate). I'll follow the rules (albeit unhappily), but let's at least make the rules fair for all of us. The worst part about this was that it is a County Health Department rule, which means that it wasn't voted on by the public.

I understand that some disagree with me simply because I smoke. If that's the case, that's fine with me. But try to set aside that disagreement and try to look at the law objectively - it honestly isn't fair to smokers. I believe we deserve the right to enjoy our vice just as the drinkers do, and I think that both should have rules regarding thier consumption. It seems like it's a little weighted, and it's only going to get worse. I can see regulations regarding smoking in your car on the horizon...

WVWG

I admit I came on a little strong in my previous post on this subject. Nobody is more likely to preach abstinence than a reformed drunk, and I guess the same goes for a reformed smoker. My "warped-ness" on the subject comes from several things: (1) Embarassment when I remember the times I smoked constantly and thoughtlessly in close proximity to non-smokers, never even thinking of how it was affecting them. (2) Concern when an old acquaintance died last week of lung cancer; he had stopped smoking as long ago as I did, a very long time, and it still got him. I wonder if I'm next. (3) Watching my invalid wife, a lifelong non-smoker and one of whose few pleasures is dining out, be aggravated by tobacco smoke drifting over her from the nearby "smoking area," which we can't move away from because we are seated at the only spot where her wheelchair can fit close enough to the table for her to eat and also be out of the way of passing servers and customers. (4) Watching my brother, a heavy smoker, die of lung cancer that had metastasized to his brain.

I share your concern for the State meddling in citizens' private affairs. I do believe there has to be a balance between everybody's rights - sometimes that doesn't happen without some coercion from government at some level. I think the issue of someone having the freedom to drink at the table next to me is seperate from the issue of their being policed to prevent them from killing me out on the highway, just as I think the issue of someone having the freedom to smoke while they drive down the highway is seperate from the issue of their being policed (or policing themselves) to prevent them from killing me, or endangering my health, or infringing upon my rights, inside the restaurant.

Again, though, I apologize for the harsh sound of my previous comments. There are at least two sides to this issue, and rational discussion, without anger, is a good idea.
 

Wandering Sensei

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
150
Reaction score
13
My antismoking stance comes from the fact that I have severe asthma, pretty much caused by being a passive smoker for the first twenty years of my life. (My mother would blow cigarette smoke in my face to "prove" I wasn't asthmatic, then get mad when my lungs would close up and I wouldn't be able to breathe.) Cigarette smoke is a dangerous poison, and it doesn't stay put. I'm also overweight and have high cholesterol, but if I eat a Krispy Kreme, this is not affecting the health or cholesterol of a person I'm eating with. The Krispy Kreme stays put. The smoke doesn't. The drifting cigarette smoke that the smoker insists isn't hurting me a bit, may cause the fatal asthma attack that kills me.

Smoking is legal and will probably stay legal. Many smokers are very fine people who happen to have a legal addiction. But I think it's totally fair that I don't want my health damaged by what they choose to do to their system.

Paprika, I like your peeing in the pool analogy. Very spot on.
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
Lot's of good replies here! I smoke (it is a fireman's habit, after all), so I feel I should say something here. Personally, I think if the owner of a resteraunt wants to permit or prohibit smoking, it is their right. The government (state, federal, local) has NO business telling the owner how they can run their business. If you do not want to eat around smokers, you do not have to go to that resteraunt. If you want to eat and smoke, you know which places allow it.

Now, as far as work place smoking goes, I think in most places an employer has the right to not hire someone because they smoke...at least I am pretty sure they can in Texas. An attorney friend told me that once. In fact, some police and fire departments are starting to require employees to be non-smokers for a year before they can be hired and maintain that status throughout their employment. That'll never happen where I work!
As far as the drug topic goes, I too think that alcohol is our great social evil, not drug use.

Brady H. (who is about to light another cig)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.