First US City to Ban All Smoking

[JEFFfromNC]

Oh boy what's next:

Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_p ... p?id=66988



On a related note, A letter to the editor that a good friend of mine had published:

Boston Sunday Globe
Letter to the editor

Were Free to be hazardous to our own health
While tobacco companies may market and sell products with warnings and deadly consequences, heart diesease is still the number one cause of death in the United States. You don't see the bacon double cheeseburger ads slowing down, do you? For that matter, what about all the car ads showing high-speed stunts performed by "professional drivers on closed courses"? None of us is immoral, yet no one wants to take responsibility for his own actions. It's human nature to laugh in the face of death. -Charlie Ferrell

[headnugg]

I hate smokers just as much as the next guy, but to ban it citywide is ridiculous. I didn't read the article, but am assuming this means no smoking in public anywhere, like if you're walking down the street.....I don't smoke, but I might go over to Belmont with a cig and see what happens......

[mjm]

I didn't read the article, but am assuming this means no smoking in public anywhere, like if you're walking down the street.

Nope, it's worse.

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.

So no smoking in your condo. No smoking in your car. So, in theory, if you get pulled over on the 101, they will be able to give you a ticket.

[headnugg]

I didn't read the article, but am assuming this means no smoking in public anywhere, like if you're walking down the street.

Nope, it's worse.

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.

So no smoking in your condo. No smoking in your car. So, in theory, if you get pulled over on the 101, they will be able to give you a ticket.

That is completely insane. Do we live in a police state where we no longer have human rights? I'm going to Belmont to cause some trouble.....

[diesel]

[I'm going to Belmont to cause some trouble.....

godspeed! start several fires only using cig packs as fuel.

[etahn]

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously...

That means that (by proxy) (in theory) the people of Belmont chose to ban smoking in public places. This is not some edict handed down from on high (perhaps from those feeling morally superior), but a law agreed on and passed by (representatives of) the people of Belmont.

If you've got the time, I highly recommend you follow through on your ideas about lighting up within city limits. It'll be interesting to see whether the cops actually do anything. Could mean some real revenue for the city. But I bet a lot of the cops smoke too.

And while you're testing the limits in Belmont, you might try sneaking in some snide comments about bombs and such to the next TSA employee you see. You know, because they're fascists, too.

[hoby]

I know I'm going to regret getting involved...

That is completely insane. Do we live in a police state where we no longer have human rights?

Does that mean I live in a police state because I can't defecate or urinate wherever I want? Seems to me it's a basic human right to not have to suffer the discomfort/pain of holding it in.

There's no getting around the fact that smoking both smells bad and is unhealthy to those around the smoker. (Let's not muddy the waters by discussing the burden on our health care system caused by smoking-related diseases because that's a whole other quagmire of a discussion.)

Yes, smokers have rights, but so do those who don't smoke and don't want to smoke (first or second-hand.)

I don't have the answers, but the question of where one person's rights end and another's begins is always tricky. Especially when one person's rights cause harm to another.

But I will tell you what I HATE.

Why is it that every driving smoker I see assumes that the entire world outside their car window is their trashbin? If you want/need to smoke, fine, but can't you at least take responsibility for the resulting butt? What about my right to not see discarded cigarette droppings everywhere I look?

Actually, I do have the answer: Smoking helmets that keep the smoker's smoke in the smoker and edible cigarette butts in a variety of flavors. Sugar-free too! We'll use Splenda or NutraSweet or some other artificial sweetener that has no calories but gets metabolized as formaldehyde. That way each cig gets followed by a delicious snack without the resulting weight gain!

hoby

[headnugg]

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously...

And while you're testing the limits in Belmont, you might try sneaking in some snide comments about bombs and such to the next TSA employee you see. You know, because they're fascists, too.

That's completely different, though I'm assuming that you are being "funny"....

I know I'm going to regret getting involved...

That is completely insane. Do we live in a police state where we no longer have human rights?

Does that mean I live in a police state because I can't defecate or urinate wherever I want? Seems to me it's a basic human right to not have to suffer the discomfort/pain of holding it in.

There's no getting around the fact that smoking both smells bad and is unhealthy to those around the smoker. (Let's not muddy the waters by discussing the burden on our health care system caused by smoking-related diseases because that's a whole other quagmire of a discussion.)

Yes, smokers have rights, but so do those who don't smoke and don't want to smoke (first or second-hand.)

I don't have the answers, but the question of where one person's rights end and another's begins is always tricky. Especially when one person's rights cause harm to another.

But I will tell you what I HATE.

Why is it that every driving smoker I see assumes that the entire world outside their car window is their trashbin? If you want/need to smoke, fine, but can't you at least take responsibility for the resulting butt? What about my right to not see discarded cigarette droppings everywhere I look?

Actually, I do have the answer: Smoking helmets that keep the smoker's smoke in the smoker and edible cigarette butts in a variety of flavors. Sugar-free too! We'll use Splenda or NutraSweet or some other artificial sweetener that has no calories but gets metabolized as formaldehyde. That way each cig gets followed by a delicious snack without the resulting weight gain!

hoby

Urinating/defecating in public is a completely different thing and you know it. If you do that you ARE breaking the law by exposing yourself in public. You're breaking a law by doing that action. You are not breaking any laws by participating in the smoking of a cigarette. Your comparison is completely without merit.

I agree with you about smoking. It's gross. And I believe that second hand smoke is bad for you. But there's a difference between banning smoking in a restaurant or bar, and banning smoking in a private residence, a car, or simply walking down the street. A bar/restaurant is a closed in space where a non-smoker has no choice but to inhale the second hand smoke. If a person wants to smoke in his own home or car who the fuck is anyone, particulary the government, to tell him differently? What's next, a citywide curfew? A city wide ban is complete bullshit......though I personally think it's awesome......

[hoby]

That's completely different, though I'm assuming that you are being "funny"....

How come etahn gets the benefit of the doubt on being funny and I don't?

Urinating/defecating in public is a completely different thing and you know it. If you do that you ARE breaking the law by exposing yourself in public. You're breaking a law by doing that action. You are not breaking any laws by participating in the smoking of a cigarette. Your comparison is completely without merit.

I must respectfully disagree with your last sentence. I'm afraid you just missed my point. Relieving oneself in public is not against the law just because someone might see your private bits. It's against the law because it's a health hazard. (If I take a crap in a dark alley and as I pull up and button my pants a cop shines his light on me and my dump, I still get a ticket even though I am not exposing myself. Hell, in today's climate I might get tasered and sent tio Gitmo.) Society agrees that for the public good, all our waste should go to a central purification location instead of in the open gutters.

If there's a law passed that makes smoking in public "illegal" because it's perceived as a public health hazard, then you are breaking the law by smoking. In that community, society has agreed that carcinogenic smoke should be severely constrained. Then puffing and pooping become not so completely different in the eyes of the law. So I ask you to reconsider the merit of my "argument."

[Yes, we're having an argument about smoking and pooping. This is sure to make a great impression on all the new board browsers coming here after hearing EISENHOWER on the radio. ]

Oh, and BTW; if a cop sees me "participating in the smoking of a cigarette" he'll assume it's one of them thar nasty illegal maryjoowanna cigarettes and then I've got to go through the whole tasering and Gitmo thing again. If I'm smoking a cigarette by myself, he'll probably just taser me.

I agree with you about smoking. It's gross. And I believe that second hand smoke is bad for you. But there's a difference between banning smoking in a restaurant or bar, and banning smoking in a private residence, a car, or simply walking down the street. A bar/restaurant is a closed in space where a non-smoker has no choice but to inhale the second hand smoke. If a person wants to smoke in his own home or car who the fuck is anyone, particulary the government, to tell him differently? What's next, a citywide curfew? A city wide ban is complete bullshit......though I personally think it's awesome......

I agree with you about the private residence. And I agree that people should be able to smoke in the car as long as they keep the windows up and keep their used butts to themselves.

As for the city-wide curfew, it's coming. With habeus corpus and posse comitatus (sp?) in his pocket, King G. is ready to declare martial law as soon as they can manufacture the need.

Then smoking will be the least of our worries.

Sweet dreams!!

hoby

[Phrazz]

I think laws work best which have local responsibility and rights addressed. The whole smoking ban issue is quite heated, but for solid reasons.

First, noone can argue that cigarettes are dangerous, addictive, unhealthy and one angle everyone forgets -- massive fire starters. Cigarettes are responsible for more forest fires than lightning and arson combined. That idiot throwing a burning butt out the window or onto the street might be dumb enough to assume it's going to go out. Heck, y'all, there's no wind! How could it possibly start a fire?

Well, I'm witnesses to discarded butts setting leaves, outdoor trash, indoor trash, on fire. These incindiary fuses are dangerous, and arsonists use them to trigger fires because of their dependability. 'Nuff said about that.

Now obviously the most in-your-face concern is that of nonsmokers being exposed to nicotene smoke. Nicotene is poisonous...plain and simple. So, they are blowing a toxic and noxious compoud into your "air space" (more about this later). You are forced to breathe it, or move. If you move, you might not be able to return. People with serious asthma can die from one single puff of nicotene -- it's that powerful.

So you have a powerful fuse linked with a powerful toxic compound that can be used to debilitate people. Sound like a taser to you?

Ok, who has been hit by a taser? Anyone? Alright, now imagine that feeling when you get hit by the little needles in your chest...you drop to the ground and start twitching uncontrollably (people might think you're having an epileptic seizure, and some folks who get zapped start to drool...I've been zapped a lot...so I'm used to it by now). That twitching is caused by your autonomic nerves kicking in...they are programmed to do that when thousands of volts of static electricity are coursing through them. Also not very healthy. I DO NOT recommend getting tased. Or starting forest fires with carelessly-discarded butts. Fucking blatantly irresponsible, and that person should get 5 years to teach them a lesson. That kills people.

So does cancer of course and we all know a lot about that. Few companies except for tobacco companies would ever even feign to argue that cigarettes do not cause permanent health problems. Permanent damage. People learn to live with that (or they don't, which is worse), but it's hard to live with if you're a restaurant person (there are millions of these...one of the most popular jobs on the planet!!!) and you have to suck in tail pipe fumes for 8 or a double shift. Fahgetaboutit...you're going to be wheezing something fierce at the end of each day. Not fun.

Now we have bars, and cards, and yards, and arms-reach, personal spaces and that's what I mean by AIR SPACE.

Everyone has a "zone", which extends in a general radius where that person feels comfortable about those in one's zone. This can be loosely referred to as "air space". We can generalize this somewhat and talk about areas, regions, territories, planets and galaxies, but the concept of space is a very important one, which I will tie in with air and explain this as best as I can. Hope I don't lose too many people.

We talk about government and I think that would have to include some observation of the rule of written government (as it sets us apart from animals...perhaps...though we know many other primates can write). In the essence of most stable world governments, those which have written laws in the form of some kind of Constitution seem to have the best chance at long-term survival [this is just a theory...but one that's hard to prove or refute].

Well, when we agree to something verbally, that's maybe not as valid as something written. The thing written is only as good as the paper upon which it resides...and that takes into account sovereignity, which is an absolutely critical concept in all forms of government (written or verbal, but less verbally as everything contract related).

Ok, so a whole down votes to eradicate smoking. They must still allow it to occur within one's domicile. If someone at a bar sets up a smoking room, and they can prove the smoke is filtered and the nonsmokers have a clean air area, I think they should be allowed for that exception. If you don't like the smoke, go to the smoke-free room. This works great in Casinos, but not all of them. Depends heavily on how good the ventilation system is, of course. Even sports bars with their lofty claims of "the air in this room is cleared every fifteen nanoseconds..." don't maintain the equipment well enough to clean the air to normal health standards.

Now let's talk about health standards. Obviously, we know that defacating in public may and probably should get you arrested (at least a hefty ticket). It's not fun to step in poo-poo, and I totally support the clean up after your pets laws..particularly in congested municipalities (if Rover takes a big freshie in a park off a trail, not a big deal...but if that freshie is in the middle of a popular frisbee lawn...it's like a little fecal land-mine waiting to trip someone up...even make them wipe out and hurt themselves -- I've seen it happen and it's not pretty -- worse for a giant cow pie -- but let's move along...). Maybe I'd support crapping on the sidewalk if it were a political statement, but how hard is the alley or tree to find? Or just a bar or a restaurant...I've had little trouble finding crappers in my life...maybe once or twice I really thought about the street...but very, very rare. We are sort of a civilized society. Bathrooms are taken more or less seriously in different neighborhoods, though. Just like laws.

Which brings me back to what is "air space". With regards to smoking, this air space all of a sudden (without warning), becomes a larger area...and at times a larger issue. Someone might say "excuse me ma'am, could you please wait until I'm done my tofu sundae before you spark up that camel light?" And that girl says, "yeah, sure, sorry I'll wait". Which is a beautiful thing. Two perfectly sane humans worked out a small dilemma, made a verbal agreement, and went about their lives, probably both smiling that they accomplished something. Compromise often can be a beautiful thing. It's the middle ground and par for the course. It's more importantly two people deciding for themselves they can work on a joint (heh heh) decision and not take it personally. Noone's air space was violated.

Now there's all sorts of scenarios I can think of with regards to violation of air space, including the Gulf of Tonkin incident that helped spark the Vietnam War (Conflict if you're a Warhawk). These are obviously far beyond the scope of this dissertation, but I reserve the right to bring them into the discussion at a later date.

So, cows, pigs, wars and witches...anyone read that one?

We were looking at cigarettes versus fecal matter and I gotta say I find it's hard to light devices with fecal matter and you can't fertilize a garden with cigarettes. The nicotene is also toxic to most plants. Good herbicide, sort of like Agent Orange (oh, am I bringing that into the deal again?). So you got this killer plant that people smoke to get a light buzz on and something we all hold inside and get rid of when we should, but hopefully not to the chagrin of parents walking their dogs shitting on the street and children who maybe are doing all sorts of things on the street.

Now that I think of it, our dogs crap on the street and their owners are supposed to pick it up. Does that mean it should be ok to have that same right as the dog...only we have to pick up after ourselves? I think that would be the responsible compromise (there are others).

Incarceration is not a compromise (generally), but fines are. A parking ticket is no big deal...unless it's downtown Manhattan. Then it's more than your whole beer and food bill for the weekend (sometimes). Heavy duty fines await the corporate robber-barons (maybe 1/10th of what they stole, if society is so lucky to even be able to convict them in the first place)...I guess fines change a lot based on what society deems is illegal, but not worth going to court since they want the majority to pay each fine. It's a barter system also. But I digreess.

So, we might not fine people smoking outside, but if they're in a restaurant, I can see how a town would levy a fine (justifiably). I think neighboring towns also have a right to make their own laws--as long as it doesn't interfere with the neighbors or greater jurisdictions. States should be allowed to override federal taxes on certain key important consumer and energy items (coats, food, electricity...necessities...gas I think should be fed as well as state tax). They should be allowed to tax cigarettes (they do), but how do these billions of dollars in taxes levied help the non-smoker????

Aye, there's the rub!!! That is one of the big problems with our whole massively bureaucratized government. It's so huge that laws and money go hand in hand (quite literally, we all read the stories) and you get the insurance companies involved, major food corporations, and it gets huge and ugly all at the same time. Hard to reconcile that complexity with some little local town ordinance(s).

Noice comes to mind. How loud can your stereo go? Mine goes to 11. I'm not sure my neighbors would love me if I kept it on 11 all night long. I've tried this...it works to a certain point. Somewhere around breakfast (or earlier), you'll get that knock on the door. Could be your bleary-eyed neighbors on their way to work who now hate you, or could be one of those guys in blue who are there to levy a fine or drag you away. I've rarely seen anyone arrested for a first-time noise complaint, but I have for a second and once because the idiot gave the nice cop too much lip. He even gave the drunken fool another chance, but this hockey player type wasn't interested in negotiation. He was on a rager.

Ok, so someone on a rager takes their dog, gets him drunk, he craps on this guy's pack of cigarettes so the town makes a law, no drunken-dog-crapping-on-butts and fine is levied at $100 for first incident, yada yada yada.

That's sort of how law works, but not everywhere. Maybe a town is so inbred that they can ban smoking everywhere...maybe the giant state of Utah is next. I guess I'd move unless the state next-door did it too. That is where another rub sets in...and the mote in your eye...and all that jazz.

The deal is we were definitely heading tragically towards a right-winger-happy haven, but the whole power pendulum is swinging back the other way, and with the right plans that inertia can create lasting benefits (I'll take even short term at this point). Maybe health concerns are winning over corporate tobacco lobbies.

That's my final point: if you smoke, then you are directly supporting this multi-trillion dollar industry, and that right there should freeze you in your tracks. Basically smokers who still wail out against Mcky D's or Mickey Mouse or even Mickey Roarke are still supporting the giagantic megalopoly killer complex whose sole purpose is to reap enormous profits at the expense of smokers and non-smokers alike (we're all the same in that regard, same with gasoline, just works more slowly..same with insurance and taxes).

I think it's completely ridiculous and constitutionally wrong to ban smoking on one's own home (or yard, unless it's right next to the neighbor's). If they burned down their house (and the neighbors) from smoking in bed, that might not make the neighborhood ban smoking...the first time. But if it happens 10 times in 13 weeks, they may consider it.

So the laws also sometimes fit the frequency of the thing, or we'd like to think so (plenty of exceptions, archaic laws, etc). Maybe sidewalk dog crap is so bad in NYC that they ban pet pooping except in parks. I can think if all the owners also crapped in the street, the problem would quickly escalate to a national crisis (in less than an hour...the country would declare a state of emergenshitcy!!! ).

Now if people made fecal catapaults and used them to attack their neighborhood smokers they hate, we'd really be in trouble. Or imagine instead your smoking neighbors lobbing back volleys of incindiary cartons, all that plastic making it stink even worse than the fido feces.

I'll also argue that some laws are bullshit, and obviously we have an obligation to correct them. Maybe this law was too extreme and it will be adjusted. Can we say any law is ever perfect?

Some would argue that bills-of-rights are the most important component of any civilized constitution. This gets into heavy deep political theory, but I think it's also a factor when talking about the right to smoke versus the right to breathe clean air.

What about water? What about food? Shouldn't these be in the Bill of Rights? Well, back in the day you could go find clean drinking water in any well and hunt whatever you needed to eat without worries about overpopulation, but as the world becomes tragically overpopulated (to the point of collapse, again stating the obvious to any real scientist)...the scarcity of resources forces people to basically kill to survive. That's where cows, pigs, wars and witches enters the scene. I won't go over the whole meaning and plot of the book, but it's sort of about social necessity and evolution and how these relate...there are many books on this subject but I found that one fun to read.

So, if someone has to kill for a cigarette, they have something terribly wrong. Maybe they were in prison for too long...but if they really do kill someone for a cigarette, they should be thrown in jail (for a while, not sure how long).

If you ask a smoker "hey, can you blow that the other way?" or "can you move the ash tray?" or "put the fucking butt away or I'm going to ram it down your throat!!!", you are trying to negotiate a compromise, with varying degrees of tact and subtlety. These may or may not be successful or even effective, and likely will result in greatly varying degrees of reponse. I do not recommend the third tactic. Especially with someone bigger than you are.

Here's where we get into the line that's drawn in the sand, and that's always going to shift as the wind and tides pull the sand around. The law is sort of like sand (quicksand sometimes) and social forces like the wind and rain can even break mountains into boulders, no matter if the laws are chiseled on stone.

That's a biblical reference for anyone not paying attention.

Now was smoking tolerated or unaccepted in the Bible? I'm curious.

Anyhow, we're not talking religion here, we're talking about laws (maybe ethics, maybe a little history, maybe some poetic liberties ).

Does a group of people have a write to make a law that is unfair to a minority? What is fair or unfair with regards to smoking? I think that question is hard to answer, so laws are hard to make.

When you talk about water or air instead of smoke, you see the complexity. Health standards supposedly legislate what is proper air and water, but as we know, many impurities vary widely and certain city water is downright undrinkable...though the locals might get used to it (I don't recommend water containing digoxyn, but it's everywhere...though not as much as lead and critters). We have all these laws to protect our air and water (from a conservation standpoint), but are we winning the battle?

If not, we do have to make certain laws stricter, but not at the expensive of civil rights and liberty. Obviously there will be compromises needed if a smoker lights up next to a nonsmoker who is bothered enough to say something or do something (whether levy a fine, or levy a blow...which I do not recommend!!!). The laws will try to make sense of the local customs and beliefs (smokum wampum if you're on a reservation, or whatever your reservations says is kosher with the chief, capiche?). Or the people will try to make sense of the laws, then adjust according to the changing beliefs.

Now don't go and tell me beliefs don't change.

Then again, some beliefs last thousands of years. So there's another problem. Law may only be good as the group social memory...look at all the archaic laws that aren't enforced anymore. Like the one about dogs and cats living under the same roof. And civil unions. Yeah, fun stuff.

The reality is most people don't have the attention span to wait three minutes before lighting another cigarette, so how can we ask for five or ten minutes of their time to talk about law and society? They don't want to be bothered. They're driving a Hummer at McD's getting a giant coffee and a huge million-calorie gigantic burger, smoking butts so they can keep their caffeine buzz sharp...listening to some god-awful music and dumping ash trays in parking lots. Definitely some problems there, too, but whether they should be arrested for wanting to kill themselves slowly, I don't know. However, we know that second-hand smoke also causes cancer, so the nonsmokers should be reserved the right to politely ask someone to take a break for ten minutes at least...and if eating, I think smoking is completely disgusting like kissing after smoking...and some would disagree with that (I guess certain folks like ash tray mouth...I don't see that as sexy at all).

I urinate in public all the time, but I try to keep my weenie out of the public eye (less I scare anyone or be called a terrorist! ;-}). You ever have one of those long interstate drives in the middle of nowhere and not a tree in sight and you just have to pull over and take care of business? I think in an emergency, someone shouldn't risk their own health to hold it in. You can cause serious damage to your kidneys (and liver) by holding that shit in too long. Even have an aneurism. Can be fatal if swallowed.

Now because cigarettes are so multifaceted, the laws concerning them are also complex and always shifting. Somehow we can try to reach consensues, or otherwise we have to learn compromise. For even a ticket is a form of compromise. A verbal agreement also works great in most cases when people are civil. But smokers and nonsmokers have trouble getting along civilly when they both think each other is stepping on their toes or otherwise invading their personal space. And that can have tragic consequences (it often does).

If I ask you to kindly not smoke and take the time to actually ask you, please think carefully why I would bother to take that time and consider your response. I might not react as you expect if you are not as polite as I can muster. I also reserve the right to take your cigarette if you have it within a foot of my face. That's my right and I usually just try to say get your ciggie out of my face, then I add you fool, then I take it after the third warning. It is not appropriate to smoke in such proximity to someone, even if you think it's your god-given right. If you know about ciggies and the Bible, lay it on me bro 'cuz I got your testament right here.

However, I think it's also in our human rights to have clean air and water (ciggies can interfere with both), as well as food, clothing and shelter. The founding rich guys never thought about basic necessities because they had tons of money and people waiting on them to worry about pipe tobacco.

Then again, there weren't so many people on this planet back then, either.

I'll get into the whole topic of "good smoke" versus "bad smoke" and "inert smoke" and cloud patterns further on up the road.

-Smoke 'em if you got 'em,

Phrazz

P.S.: I'll proofread and edit this later.

[hoby]

Phrazz,

That was most excellent fun.

One of these days we should all get together without inviting the Slip so that we can play with language and ideas in person without the music to distract us.

Thanks,

hoby

[percyboyd]

Behaviour coercion represents a serious threat to both personal liberties and freedom of enterprise. A state that uses taxation, communication and law to impose personal health is called a Therapeutic State, one in which all citizens are potentially sick and in need of cure. Such a regime elevates so-called public health to a plane higher than personal liberties or, worse yet, attempts to create an equivalence between health and freedom. On such a basis, the repression of personal liberties when they are not conducive to "health" as conceived by the state becomes acceptable, legitimate and even moral. A very dangerous concept is thus launched: those who don't take care of their health according to state or special interest dogmas are immoral, thus their marginalization from social and public life is justified. Today this mentality pervades among much of both the public and the state and, as we have demonstrated for years, is no longer limited to the smoking issue. It has expanded to food, alcohol, and even coffee - and soon it will expand to any other aspects of social life, since virtually every human action is potentially harmful to health. Such a concept, which transcends logic and science as well as morality and intellectual integrity, is sanctioned by the Precautionary Principle, and is the excuse for unlimited bureaucratic control.

[headnugg]

That's completely different, though I'm assuming that you are being "funny"....

How come etahn gets the benefit of the doubt on being funny and I don't?hoby

Cause you're not funny

Urinating/defecating in public is a completely different thing and you know it. If you do that you ARE breaking the law by exposing yourself in public. You're breaking a law by doing that action. You are not breaking any laws by participating in the smoking of a cigarette. Your comparison is completely without merit.

I must respectfully disagree with your last sentence. I'm afraid you just missed my point. Relieving oneself in public is not against the law just because someone might see your private bits. It's against the law because it's a health hazard. (If I take a crap in a dark alley and as I pull up and button my pants a cop shines his light on me and my dump, I still get a ticket even though I am not exposing myself. Hell, in today's climate I might get tasered and sent tio Gitmo.) Society agrees that for the public good, all our waste should go to a central purification location instead of in the open gutters.

If there's a law passed that makes smoking in public "illegal" because it's perceived as a public health hazard, then you are breaking the law by smoking. In that community, society has agreed that carcinogenic smoke should be severely constrained. Then puffing and pooping become not so completely different in the eyes of the law. So I ask you to reconsider the merit of my "argument."

But what you're saying is irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHY taking a shit in public is illegal. It is illegal. Smoking a cigarette in public ISN'T breaking a law. Peeing in public IS breaking a law. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it seems you're almost violating someone's rights by dictating their behavior and telling them they CANNOT smoke in public. That was my original point and I don't think your going to the bathroom in public argument is relevant, because that action is against the law in the first place. So you can't take away someone's rights by not allowing them to urinate/defecate in public since they never had the option to do that in the first place. With this new bullshit rule, you're taking away a right(privilege?) that someone DID have to begin with.....

[magpie]

but... a long long time ago, in a galaxy not-so far away, expelling bodily fluids/solids in public was in fact NOT illegal until some legislative body decided that yes, in fact, it SHOULD be illegal and therefore did so.

same deal with smoking.
wasn't illegal before. now folks are rethinking that and many are leaning towards the "yes, it should be illegal" side.

[tyler]

Unlike most things that those in charge try to legislate these days, smoking actually does affect other people negatively. I'm cool with smoking if you keep it to yourself but there's nothing worse than those at concerts or waiting at a bus stop or crosswalk who decide to blow their smoke right into the faces of all the nearby non-smokers and think nothing of it.