- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Officials said the proposed law is based on evidence that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke is deemed as a health risk.
"The science is clear: prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke, whether you're indoors or out, hurts your health," Bloomberg said in a statement.
Though, of course, the liberal idiots who want to ban tobacco smoking on the grounds of personal freedom for passive smokers, also would want pot legalised - for reasons of personal freedom of course!
Smokers are just one of the 'witches' hunted down by liberal-left twunts.
And I come on so heavy with that remark because whilst the likes of motorists, airliner passengers or smokers are treated as lepers, crime skyrockets and educational standards go to pot.
Mind, the public must like this misdirected energy - they voted for it!
Boo hoo hoo. Sniffle.
Get over it. Smokers are annoying, and I support any law that pisses them off on that principle alone. If you want to smoke, smoke alone around no one else. Even in "outdoor" areas, it becomes more than annoying, They stink up the public areas with their filthy habits.
You're too young to know who this is, but Steve Martin had a great line about smoking:
Mind if I smoke?
No. Mind if I fart?
Vancouver just did this... banned smoking in parks, beaches, boardwalks, etc. Don't understand why they aren't just banning smoking altogether. Why bother with the pretense? Or maybe that is the ultimate goal and they're just being gradual. I mean, even if someone smokes in their home, a lot of people are renters in apartment complexes, and the smoke goes down the halls, or to floors above and beside if people are doing it on balconies. Wherever there are smokers there are always going to be non-smokers somewhere in the vicinity to make the rule excusable.
I have to say, as a non-smoker and doctor I am personally biased in favour of this law. I hate having to share public spaces with smokers, even after I am making it clear to them that their smoking is bothering me. It is always I who has to get up and move, just because I don't want to be poisoned. I can even tolerate pot smoke way more than I can the poisonous stench of tobacco. If people are so hooked on nicotine, maybe they should administer it more directly, like with a patch, so that people nearby aren't getting dosed with carcinogens.
I understand that you hate to share public spaces with smokers. I can even respect that. But smokers have rights also. I would rather them out right make it illegal than do what they are doing now. Because as it stands with it being legal they should have no right to tell you where you can/can't smoke...except on federal property, that I don't mind them telling me no. But when it comes to public property or a private buisness? That is an invasion of privacy and rights as far as I am concerned.
Simple answer to his reply: Nope. I can just move upwind....oh wait...can't non-smokers do the same in Times Square?
Bloomberg is a statist tyrant, this is all part of the incrementalism we warned about years ago.
There's only about five Birchers left, and I doubt the Rev is one of them. :roll:Statist. That's Bircher talk. Are you a Bircher?
Boo hoo hoo. Sniffle.
Get over it. Smokers are annoying, and I support any law that pisses them off on that principle alone. If you want to smoke, smoke alone around no one else. Even in "outdoor" areas, it becomes more than annoying, They stink up the public areas with their filthy habits.
..and the city re-elected the Feudal Lord because he was able to strongarm the city council. Granted things couldve been worse if he decided to run for Governor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?