Printable View
Welcome to Australia for the last 2-3 years.
Smoking is only allowed at least 5 meters from any entranceway, No smoking indoors, and at least 10m from childrens play areas. In bars and clubs there allowed to have a designated smoking area that must be signed. Everywhere else is off limits resulting in fines. (Please correct me on any of that if im wrong)
But overall its not a big drama for people. If you want to smoke youll find a spot.
See, that's a very restricted set of parameters for confined spaces, which I don't have a real problem with. It's some of the laws on the books or in the system here in the US that are very vague and do not allow for "reasonable" provisions that worries me. That, and that I trust a politician about as far as I can throw 'em.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Pact',index.php?page=Thread&postID=123421#post123 421
Your right, Vagueness is bad for a law if you dont understand it. We had alot of Television and radio ads making us aware of the new change. Most people got it right in being that if your outside and not near kids then your right to smoke.
A study a few years ago showed that the smoke inhaled from second-hand smoking has the exact same effects on a person as if they were smoking it themselves--They just get less of it by virtue of not dragging on the cigarette. So yeah, smoking around other people is bad.
For the record, I think it's bullshit that the government is placing limitations on where people can smoke on private property. It's your choice to go to a bar despite the fact that you'll smell like an ashtray afterwards.
This is how it has been in denmark for a year :p
Guess I'm going to have to start smoking crack instead.
What about the bartenders and waitress? They sort of don't have a choice. If it is your table you have to wait on them even if you are a non smoker. That is there job and i bet a ton of them are happy that they don't have to go home every night smelling like smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Mosg2',index.php?page=Thread&postID=123492#post12 3492
I don't think that they will ever make drinking and smoking illegal. There a lot of taxes on them and making illegal will make us pay taxes somewhere else.
Think of the children!Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Fursphere',index.php?page=Thread&postID=123353#po st123353
Do you hate children? Then we must hunt and kill drunk drivers!!
This all boils down to freedom of choice. We are sappose to have the freedom to make whatever choices we want to. People choose to smoke, why ? Because they had the freedom to do so. People choose to work in bars, Why ? Because they choose to do so. People choose to drink and drive , Why ? Because they choose to do so. With the freedom of choices also comes the consequences of our choices, good or bad. Bottom line is our country was founded on the beliefs that people should get to make their own choices on what they want to do, and not be controlled by some monarcy. People wake up, this isnt about smoking this is about taking away your freedom to choose to do what you want to do. Just like everything else the government wants to control you,. think about the gun laws, they took away our right to bare arms. Why ? Because they don't want a revolution. It has nothing to do with protecting the people.
I know this is sounding very patriotic, but its true. Read the book, " A people's History of the United States".
Of course, the counter-argument to that is "you can exercise your rights to freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights to be free from you causing them harm." To which my further follow-up would be that the problem is not that there is a problem with being free from someone else causing you harm -- it is the definition of "harm." How detrimental does something have to be to get on the "BANZOR" list? Not being able to smoke within 100 feet of an open-air section of pavement is a bit redonkulous, don't you think?
I'll give you an example: Saccharin. After 14 years of flaming bullshit by over-cautious, agenda-ized retards calling saccharin a carcinogen, the FDA finally said, "Oops! We were wrong. We take it back. No more ban." Took another 23 years for the laws created from the uproar to be repealed.
I'll give you another example: DDT. It was banned in 1972 after Silent Spring was published and the Great Unwashed picked up the hue and cry and panicked. Prevailing estimates run somewhere between 7 and 60 million deaths attributed to a lack of use of DDT to kill malarial parasites (notably: mosquitos) in Africa (especially sub-tropical areas) alone, despite no substantial empirical evidence to support the supposed broad-reaching detrimental effects to entire sub-phyla of vertebrates.
So, you tell me. Is the science "settled" on all the various nasty things goverments have banned or are planning to ban?