ClanKiller.com
http://forums.clankiller.com/

Smoking banned in US town
http://forums.clankiller.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2061		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Rinox [ Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:54 am ]
Post subject:  Smoking banned in US town
Except for in seperate houses. :o


[quote]Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking
By Dana Yates, Daily Journal Staff


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,â€
Author:  derf [ Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Ah the old liberlism Vs responsibility discussion. I'm somewhere in the middle, but with cigarettes, probably more toward reponsibility because of the tobacco companies forces of influnce.
Author:  Rinox [ Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:57 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm a little indifferent in this matter. As a non-smoker, I couldn't really care less if they ban cigs or not. :)

But I'd still say that a strict policy to avoid second-hand smoking as much as possible is still much preferrable over banning it alltogether. Cos really, not being allowed to smoke on the street? Wtf? Are they gonna ban cars too cos their exhaust gasses are bad for my health? It doesn't make sense...
Author:  Satis [ Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
well, according to that article, you can't even smoke in your own car. Last I checked, your car was your personal property. How can they dictate what you can and can't do in your personal property? Anyway, I think it should be nabbed as unconstitutional... which should hopefully open the floodgates on anti-retarded laws like that.

I mean, if smoking was illegal, ok. But it's not. So quit discriminating against smokers.
Author:  Rinox [ Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:50 am ]
Post subject: 
Why do you care, out of principle? Just wondering, now you've joined the ranks of the non-smokers. Have a tofu and some purified water. :P ;)
Author:  Satis [ Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:51 am ]
Post subject: 
*gasp* I still smoke occasionally, but it's pretty much only in my own home. So yea, I disagree on principal. Basically people are being shunned and ostracized from society for their personal habits or whatever. But it's legal. You shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone because you don't like thier habits. Where's the difference between that and not liking their race or religion.

And what about chewing tobacco? That's alot more disgusting, imo. Like, nasty as hell. And it smells. But people can still do that in their cars. :evil:
Author:  derf [ Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
...
Author:  Rinox [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Satis wrote:
*gasp* I still smoke occasionally, but it's pretty much only in my own home. So yea, I disagree on principal. Basically people are being shunned and ostracized from society for their personal habits or whatever. But it's legal. You shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone because you don't like thier habits. Where's the difference between that and not liking their race or religion.

And what about chewing tobacco? That's alot more disgusting, imo. Like, nasty as hell. And it smells. But people can still do that in their cars. :evil:



Well, the difference between those and smoking obviously is that chewing tobacco will pwn you but not necessarily the people around you. Unless they're your wife or you stand real close to them while talking. :twisted:

No but you see what I mean. Disliking race and religion aren't necessarily bad for other people's health (even if it usually comes down to it), smoking is to people around you.

Anyway I'm not disagreeing with you, I think it's a stupid law and it wouldn't surprise me if it's unconstitutional or something. But I do see a clear difference between smoking and other 'questionable' habits in terms of health consequences. :P
Author:  Satis [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:14 am ]
Post subject: 
I understand your point, but I'm not convinced that people smoking near you out in open air will increase your chance of getting lung cancer. How about we ban SUVs and diesel trucks first? I bet that would have a much more measurable effect on society's overall health. How about we can internal combustion engines entirely and force everyone to use hydrogen, electric or steam? hehe...steam.

Err... anyway, I think it's just an example of more people riding the "it's cool to fuck with smokers" train. These are the same people that rode the "black people are inferior" and "communists will ruin your life" trains in the past.
Author:  Rinox [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:04 am ]
Post subject: 
What, black people aren't inferior? that's news to me! :o jk

And I'd be all for banning SUV's :) Diesel trucks at least have an economical aspect to them, especially in the US where river trade routes are almost non-exisiting (afaik).
Author:  RB [ Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm relatively super sensitive to all sorts of smoke, which passes not without affecting my psychophysical abilities and -I'm sure- health, as I am breathing it. In principle, smell of nicotine, caffeine and similar materies cause me an instant headache that may take the whole day if I do not get rid of the source in matter of seconds.

I curse and swear when I walk behind a smoker, I make acid comments and potentially kick ass of a smoker who sat near me in the classroom, I openly declare myself, in word and deed, as an anti-smoker, which brought quite much hatred upon myself.

Frankly, not all people are so lucky to be such sensitive. Yet, that is not telling that people who do not care whether they are breathing smoke or not do not take damage from it.

In overall, smoking isn't good for health of those who smoke and those who breath that what they smoke, so closing them up while they smoke is doing just fine for me.
Author:  Satis [ Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
gah, I'm surrounded by Nazis. :/

Sorry to hear about your extreme reactions, but other people have extreme allergic reactions to things like perfume...but that's not being banned. Or to fur....but fur coats and minks and crap aren't being banned either. And as much as smoke may choke you up, if you're standing at a bus stop and someone 5 feet away is smoking, I don't think you can tell me that will cause any significant shortening of your life.

Heh....sometimes I think we argue on clankiller just for the sake of argueing.
Author:  Rinox [ Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:41 am ]
Post subject: 
No we don't, I argue because I'm right!!! :twisted: :wink:
Author:  Rinox [ Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:04 am ]
Post subject: 
In the series 'people need to get a fucking life'

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/ ... 47401.html


Quote:
Colo. Subdivision Bans Wreath Peace Sign

By ROBERT WELLER
The Associated Press


DENVER - A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up," he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

Lisa Jensen said she wasn't thinking of the war when she hung the wreath. She said, "Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing."

Jensen, a past association president, calculates the fines will cost her about $1,000, and doubts they will be able to make her pay. But she said she's not going to take it down until after Christmas.


"Now that it has come to this I feel I can't get bullied," she said. "What if they don't like my Santa Claus."

The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive."

The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.



Jesus man, wtf? Why do they care about the sign in the first place? Don't they've got a better thing to do or something. :roll:
Author:  Satis [ Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:53 am ]
Post subject: 
of course not. They're a "homeowners association", which means they're all the nosy bishes that have nothing better to do than stick their nose into your affairs. :) One of the advantages of living in the barrio like me is that noone gives a fuck. Then again, that also results in my having to listen to oom-pah music. :evil:
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/