Smoking illegal in your own home?

[Jenna_Jynx]

I'm so sorry to hear about your dad.  But to use your story as an example, when there are things out there like pancreatic cancer, why would one rationally try to add to the vast number of things that can kill them by smoking?

Most smokers I know wish they never started.

[masterofsuspense]

I'm so sorry to hear about your dad.  But to use your story as an example, when there are things out there like pancreatic cancer, why would one rationally try to add to the vast number of things that can kill them by smoking?

Most smokers I know wish they never started.

I see your point there, I'm a smoker and I wouldn't mind just dropping smoking, though health risk is not on the top of the list why. Here is the thing why I think so, you are probably doing several things that are equally bad if not worse to your health right now, some of them might be things you really don't think about like skin cancer from uv or things you have very little control over like breathing fine particles in dence urban areas. Of course it is best to recongnize potential hazards to your health and act on it, like quit smoking.

Smoking is bad and no one should be doing it, but so are drugs, alcohol, unhealthy food and several other things, plus countless other things you aren't aware about or don't have control over. My life is here right in this actual moment, and I'm not dead so I try make the most out of it, there is no yesterday nor tomorrow.

Only thing bothering me is that others seem hellbent on telling me what to do, mainly goverment.

[Mr Politics UK]

I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do drugs, I am not overweight/addicted to food, I don't have sex, I don't gamble. I do not have ANY vices whatsoever!

You sound like a barrel of laughs. let's party!

[Jenna_Jynx]

Only thing bothering me is that others seem hellbent on telling me what to do

I agree, however, when it comes to my well being, as well as rights and well being of other non smokers, kindly take it outside...  If the government wants to ban smoking all together, then that's a different story..

[masterofsuspense]

I agree, however, when it comes to my well being, as well as rights and well being of other non smokers, kindly take it outside...  If the government wants to ban smoking all together, then that's a different story..

Yes, I absolutely agree. People should be more aware of their actions, when I'm around of people who I know don't smoke I usually don't smoke or if I have to - which is rare - I excuse myself and find a suitable place, it's not that hard like it's impossible. We need to be more considerate of each other, people do different things, what ever you choose to do, realize that there might be a price for it. I'ts like going to a restaurant as a vegan with your friends who only want to eat bacon, can you really snap at them if they want to eat red meat? As if they are going to suddenly change and angels will sing in choir

[Jenna_Jynx]

I agree, however, when it comes to my well being, as well as rights and well being of other non smokers, kindly take it outside...  If the government wants to ban smoking all together, then that's a different story..

+1  +1   +1!

[Kilika]

I agree, however, when it comes to my well being, as well as rights and well being of other non smokers, kindly take it outside...  If the government wants to ban smoking all together, then that's a different story..

(Just how arrogant can you be by "+1" your own post!  )

Your so funny! You do realize that smokers have the same rights you do? Your attitude is the exact same attitude that the fascist government has by instituting "free speech zones", saying you have the right to free speech, over there in that fenced in area only. Rights don't go away based upon where you're standing or sitting. It's called the Constitution!

And don't get me started on "no smoking campus" policies that hospitals are implementing. Completely leave their physical property, just to smoke outside? That's absurd to the extreme. The most stressful place on earth, and they don't want smokers to smoke? Mmm yeah, that makes a ton of sense!

How about not driving your pollution-causing auto in my airspace? Kindly drive elsewhere please, for the sake of people who don't want to breath your pollution!

You just don't get it because it's all about you, regardless of what others want.  

[Jenna_Jynx]

(Just how arrogant can you be by "+1" your own post!

It was obviously an accident.  I had highlighted the following, but I guess I didn't do the ctrl+c properly, and it had pasted my previous reply and didn't notice (I always ctrl+c my replies in case they don't go through)

This is what I meant to paste in my quote:

Yes, I absolutely agree. People should be more aware of their actions, when I'm around of people who I know don't smoke I usually don't smoke or if I have to - which is rare - I excuse myself and find a suitable place, it's not that hard like it's impossible.

And to address your comment..

Your so funny! You do realize that smokers have the same rights you do?

Yup, they have the right to smoke.  But at what point does it become your right to kill those around you? 

Your attitude is the exact same attitude that the fascist government has by instituting "free speech zones", saying you have the right to free speech, over there in that fenced in area only.

That makes absolutely zero sense.  Exercising ones right to free speech is not a method of slowly killing anyone.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

You remind me of the kind of person who would scream "FASCISM!" because you don't have the right to walk down the street swinging randomly with a baseball bat.  Who cares if you injure someone in the process right?  It should be your RIGHT to walk around randomly swinging a bat.. and anyone who says otherwise is just fascist, right?   

[Kilika]

Yup, they have the right to smoke.  But at what point does it become your right to kill those around you?

There in lies the problem; you base your position on a false premise, which is secondhand smoke kills people. You think it does, I think it's absurd and they have no proof. Moving on.

Ultimately, you are trying to mix apples and oranges actually. Your mixing rights with consequences. It's the same as confusing "May I go outside" with "Can I go outside". My question to you is why is the burden on one and not the other? You equally have the right to not complain, and the right to leave, so why is it fair to make rules that only burdens part of the equation? If the no smoking propaganda machine has had any affect like it's claimed, then there won't be very many places where smoking is allowed, if the decision is left to owners and not the state, as it's claimed there has been reductions in smoking so it stands to reason there would be a growing number of places that wouldn't allow it, based on supply and demand.

There should be "Smokers Only" rules as well within the law so long as you're going to demand "No Smoking", which decision should be the business owner's, not the government to that extent. People should be free to have a business for smokers as much as people have the right to avoid smoking by having a no smoking policy.

Randomly swinging a baseball bat is illegal how? You have the right to defend yourself, right? So why aren't you watching where your going while walking? If you don't watch out and pay attention to those around you, you could get cracked in the noodle by a baseball bat!

The action of swinging doesn't involve a crime till that bat makes contact, or it's impact is directed at another person or property. Just like with a gun. Possesing a gun isn't a criminal action of itself except by law in some cases. It's an inanimate object, with no life of it's own. It requires the actions of a human to get it involved in a crime. Quite frankly, the gun and tobacco is an innocent bystander that gets dragged into situations by people.

[Freeski]

There in lies the problem; you base your position on a false premise, which is secondhand smoke kills people. You think it does, I think it's absurd and they have no proof. Moving on.

Ultimately, you are trying to mix apples and oranges actually. Your mixing rights with consequences. It's the same as confusing "May I go outside" with "Can I go outside". My question to you is why is the burden on one and not the other? You equally have the right to not complain, and the right to leave, so why is it fair to make rules that only burdens part of the equation? If the no smoking propaganda machine has had any affect like it's claimed, then there won't be very many places where smoking is allowed, if the decision is left to owners and not the state, as it's claimed there has been reductions in smoking so it stands to reason there would be a growing number of places that wouldn't allow it, based on supply and demand.

There should be "Smokers Only" rules as well within the law so long as you're going to demand "No Smoking", which decision should be the business owner's, not the government to that extent. People should be free to have a business for smokers as much as people have the right to avoid smoking by having a no smoking policy.

Randomly swinging a baseball bat is illegal how? You have the right to defend yourself, right? So why aren't you watching where your going while walking? If you don't watch out and pay attention to those around you, you could get cracked in the noodle by a baseball bat!

The action of swinging doesn't involve a crime till that bat makes contact, or it's impact is directed at another person or property. Just like with a gun. Possesing a gun isn't a criminal action of itself except by law in some cases. It's an inanimate object, with no life of it's own. It requires the actions of a human to get it involved in a crime. Quite frankly, the gun and tobacco is an innocent bystander that gets dragged into situations by people.

Hear hear!

[Jenna_Jynx]

There in lies the problem; you base your position on a false premise, which is secondhand smoke kills people. You think it does, I think it's absurd and they have no proof. Moving on.

And the next time we walk by, I'll be sure to wildly swing my arms in your general direction.  So what if I hit you?  How dare you try to suppress my right to swing my arms in your general direction?  Oh it hurt you?  I think it's absurd and you have no proof.  Moving along.. 

[chris jones]

Hear hear!

  Kilikia, well said, Bingo+++++

[donnay]

And the next time we walk by, I'll be sure to wildly swing my arms in your general direction.  So what if I hit you?  How dare you try to suppress my right to swing my arms in your general direction?  Oh it hurt you?  I think it's absurd and you have no proof.  Moving along.. 

You need to read closely...he answered your silly rhetoric.

The action of swinging doesn't involve a crime till that bat [or arms] makes contact, or it's impact is directed at another person or property.

[Jenna_Jynx]

So it's a crime to hit, but not a crime to slowly kill someone with lung cancer?

The pro-smokers will obviously gang up with their BS that smoke is good for you.. with its tar, arsenic, and other highly toxic chemicals that should never be in the body, and those same people will moan about it should be a crime to put fluoride in the water.  It's so ironic.

[masterofsuspense]

So it's a crime to hit, but not a crime to slowly kill someone with lung cancer?

Well you know, we smokers don't smoke right next to you with intent to slowly killing you. A BIG difference there. And in my opinion, the only person a smoker is slowly killing with lung cancer is himself, and he is doing it willingly with full knowledge, there is very few situations you are forced to be AND suffer secondhand smoke, especially since many workplaces like bars are smoke free (at least in Finland, don't know about USA).

[donnay]

So it's a crime to hit, but not a crime to slowly kill someone with lung cancer?

The pro-smokers will obviously gang up with their BS that smoke is good for you.. with its tar, arsenic, and other highly toxic chemicals that should never be in the body, and those same people will moan about it should be a crime to put fluoride in the water.  It's so ironic.

You have proof of this?  So should the people that own mines or steel mills be brought to trial because workers would die of black lung more frequently?

I am by no means saying that the cigarettes made by Big Tobacco is safe. With all the additives they put in it is definitely not good for people--where is the government agencies raiding these factories???  Nevertheless, the second hand smoke is more fear mongering and junk science to distort the facts.  Common sense would dictate, that you breath in more toxins when you pump gas into your vehicle or stand on a corner in a busy city waiting for a bus.  On the other hand, organic tobacco is not bad for people, this has been proven.

[Mr Politics UK]

Has anyone thought why governments around the world want you to stop smoking?

Clue: it's not because they like or care about you.

[chris jones]

 The intensity is overwhelming, I had to get back to this post.
If a person chooses to smoke, go ahead and smoke. On the other hand if another is convinced they will shrivel up and  die from 2nd hand smoke either they can ask the smoker to please stop or if that's not a viable solution make distance and smoking has been prohibited in gathering places. Game over.
  BUT. Whats going on here is the making of a LAW prohibiting a citizen from smoking in his or her home or apartment they pay for. Now even the hardcore nonsmoking right wingers may take a moment to pause on that one.
  I smoke, I know the BS chems injected and wish it was natural-no poison added, (we can all leave that up to our FDA & Monsanto) They will most certainly categorize natural tobacco as prohibited.
 Off the map again, sorry... This Law if in effect will simply be a controll factor leading to many more.
Who the Frac can tell a citizen they are not allowed to smoke a cigarete in their own home.........
 End. I'm not going to say cigs are healthy,* no contest, but I will say I stopped for 7 years and was vexed with constant colds and Pnuemonia twice, sound weird, sure, but its true.

[phasma]

Only educated and mature people such as myself know better not to smoke. Tobacco is another tool of the elites in controlling the masses and for causing disease and death.

Get out, go jogging, go sun yourself, exercise, drink water and eat healthy. Don't fall into the traps the establishment has laid out before you.
[I think smoking is not the smartest thing on earth to do too - me, I have never and will never smoke for reasons similar to yours - BUT - I will defend anyone who wants to smoke in their own homes - away from kids - to the end. You are missing the point here though - they are going after smokers because they are an easy target - once they get "the people" accustomed to state / govt intervention in peoples own homes for this - do you honestly think they will not extend it on to something else - like - alcohol (which i know you say you don`t drink but plenty of people do) or eating certain foods . . . or, well, whatever the hell they want at that point. And how to enforce it? Maybe spot checks - maybe "offenders" will be let off without a fine if they agree to havin a camera installed to "help" them not re-offend? Its the same slippery slope that made it ok to micro-chip your dog - your elderly alheizmered relative - your elderly relative - your kids . . . what ever they say it is NOT about the smokers - they are just the current target !/quote]

[chris jones]

Only educated and mature people such as myself know better not to smoke. Tobacco is another tool of the elites in controlling the masses and for causing disease and death.

Get out, go jogging, go sun yourself, exercise, drink water and eat healthy. Don't fall into the traps the establishment has laid out before you.
[I think smoking is not the smartest thing on earth to do too - me, I have never and will never smoke for reasons similar to yours - BUT - I will defend anyone who wants to smoke in their own homes - away from kids - to the end. You are missing the point here though - they are going after smokers because they are an easy target - once they get "the people" accustomed to state / govt intervention in peoples own homes for this - do you honestly think they will not extend it on to something else - like - alcohol (which i know you say you don`t drink but plenty of people do) or eating certain foods . . . or, well, whatever the hell they want at that point. And how to enforce it? Maybe spot checks - maybe "offenders" will be let off without a fine if they agree to havin a camera installed to "help" them not re-offend? Its the same slippery slope that made it ok to micro-chip your dog - your elderly alheizmered relative - your elderly relative - your kids . . . what ever they say it is NOT about the smokers - they are just the current target !/quote] Well said phasma.

[Freeski]

Each and every anti-smoking law like this needs funding: to implement it, to brainwash the people and to enforce it.

And we pay for this why?

[John_Back_From_The_Club_O]

wow, you sound like a reincarnated Adolph Hitler.

Please go to link!  You won't be disappointed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1BKxYyJJJ4

[GoatsHead]

I am going to be the last man standing in my family.

I am the only one who maintains my weight and takes care of my health.

[donnay]

I am going to be the last man standing in my family.

I am the only one who maintains my weight and takes care of my health.

That doesn't necessarily mean you will be the last man standing in your family.  Over confidence without constantly seeking the truth and knowing the truth is a leading cause of much ignorance. 

Unfortunately is it is a human flaw. *SIGH*

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it."  ~Patrick Henry

[criticalunity]

You sound like a barrel of laughs. let's party!

HAHA ! The altered Christianities propagation of the demonisation of sexual pleasures is part of the global controller bloodlines way of mind control...

[Kilika]

I am going to be the last man standing in my family.

I am the only one who maintains my weight and takes care of my health.

"Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips." Proverbs 27:2 (KJB)

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Hebrews 9:27 (KJB)

7   But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness. 
8   For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 
9   This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 
10   For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 
11   These things command and teach. 
1 Timothy 4:7-11 (KJB)

[GoatsHead]

I'm the only one in my family who isn't overweight, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, and doesn't live a destructive lifestyle.

[Freeski]

I'm the only one in my family who isn't overweight, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, and doesn't live a destructive lifestyle.

How many times a week do you eat at McDonald's?

[GoatsHead]

How many times a week do you eat at McDonald's?

Zero

[Freeski]

Zero

I thought you might say that!

I mention it just because I was amazed at how much weight I lost after a year of no fast food. Best thing I ever did, after ditching the boob tube.

[Jenna_Jynx]

You have proof of this?  So should the people that own mines or steel mills be brought to trial because workers would die of black lung more frequently?

That makes absolutely no sense at all.  The people working in the mines choose to (and they also wear face masks in toxic areas.. my brothers friend works in a coal mine)...

People taking in second hand smoke don't choose to do so.

And LOL @ the nuts who think second hand smoke doesn't harm people.

Like I said earlier.. smokers will circle jerk around the fallacy that the toxic chemicals they inhale doesn't harm anyone.. like how alcoholics think all their problems are other peoples fault.. never theirs..

[EyesOpenWider]

That makes absolutely no sense at all.  The people working in the mines choose to (and they also wear face masks in toxic areas.. my brothers friend works in a coal mine)...

People taking in second hand smoke don't choose to do so.

And LOL @ the nuts who think second hand smoke doesn't harm people.

Like I said earlier.. smokers will circle jerk around the fallacy that the toxic chemicals they inhale doesn't harm anyone.. like how alcoholics think all their problems are other peoples fault.. never theirs..

The the crux..who defines the nuts..smokers are easy...wait a while...

[GoatsHead]

I thought you might say that!

I mention it just because I was amazed at how much weight I lost after a year of no fast food. Best thing I ever did, after ditching the boob tube.

I used to be almost 300lbs and now I am +/- 210 lbs at 6 foot 3.

I gave up fast food and processed foods. I ate grilled meats, vegetables, fruit, water, and so forth, for just over a year. And I lost almost 100 lbs.

Stay away from fast food.

[Freeski]

I used to be almost 300lbs and now I am +/- 210 lbs at 6 foot 3.

I gave up fast food and processed foods. I ate grilled meats, vegetables, fruit, water, and so forth, for just over a year. And I lost almost 100 lbs.

Stay away from fast food.

Congrats - that's amazing!

Pretty much the same diet here.

[decemberfellow]

If cigarettes are so very bad - why doesn't the government just ban them?

Until then - I won't believe this is anything but a scam.

Why doesn,t the government just ban them?

....Money  see here:http://www.rjrt.com/taxpays.aspx
400 billion dollars low estimate

unemployment that would happen:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110330145014AAezvOq   hundreds of thousands of workers.


To Jenna Jynx:  show me proof  that second hand smoke kills.



     There are plenty post in here about cigarettes,being not bad,  even one on the FALSE pretense on how bad second hand smoke is.  From all the info posted in Prison Planet Forum about this subject I can draw a strong belief that if cigarette smoking was done away with altogether  the cancer rate would not change.
     You would have a lot less cancers,lung problems, and diseases of all forms, if we could eliminate the government controlling our lives with vaccines, chemtrails and GMO poisoned foods, fluoride in water, and the list goes on.

[Jenna_Jynx]

Only the blind and dumb don't see cigarettes for the eugenics tool it is,,,,

[Freeski]

Only the blind and dumb don't see cigarettes for the eugenics tool it is,,,,

So what if they don't? How is that your concern?

[MonkeyPuppet]

So what if they don't? How is that your concern?

Exactly!

This is what nazi-esque non/ex-smokers and control freaks don't get.  Me smoking in my home affects them in no way whatsoever, nor does me smoking on my f**king balcony, in my car, shuffled at the side entrances of office buildings where we're forced to go, or even walking down the f**king street.  Further, a business that chooses to allow smoking in their establishment, that has the courtesy of posting a "We Allow Smoking" sign out front, harms no one, either... it's about choice, dicks.

Yeah, we know it's bad for us, but there are non-chemical cocktail options out there and we know that, too.  How about the nazi-esque non/ex-smokers and control freaks leave me the f**k alone and I'll leave them alone... otherwise, they can bring their taste-legislating pens and I'll bring my .45 ... let's see who makes a stronger statement .  Too rash, you say?  Well, anything less than the FULL measure of liberty is far too little for my "taste"

[donnay]

Only the blind and dumb don't see cigarettes for the eugenics tool it is,,,,

If smoking actually killed the way the propaganda and the junk science says don't you think the eugenicists would be cheering it on and pushing more people to smoke?

[Freeski]

Exactly!

This is what nazi-esque non/ex-smokers and control freaks don't get.  Me smoking in my home affects them in no way whatsoever, nor does me smoking on my f**king balcony, in my car, shuffled at the side entrances of office buildings where we're forced to go, or even walking down the f**king street.  Further, a business that chooses to allow smoking in their establishment, that has the courtesy of posting a "We Allow Smoking" sign out front, harms no one, either... it's about choice, dicks.

Yeah, we know it's bad for us, but there are non-chemical cocktail options out there and we know that, too.  How about the nazi-esque non/ex-smokers and control freaks leave me the f**k alone and I'll leave them alone... otherwise, they can bring their taste-legislating pens and I'll bring my .45 ... let's see who makes a stronger statement .  Too rash, you say?  Well, anything less than the FULL measure of liberty is far too little for my "taste"

I enjoyed that tremendously!