GI enacts it's own smoking ban, effective THIS year.
Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss
-
- Human Relations
- Posts: 896
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: Hutchinson, KS
GI enacts it's own smoking ban, effective THIS year.
The Grand Island City Council voted this morning to enact a citywide smoking ban.
The citywide smoking ban will go into effect June 1 -- a full year in advance of a statewide smoking ban.
The citywide smoking ban will go into effect June 1 -- a full year in advance of a statewide smoking ban.
Congrats in telling people how to live their lives.
What we need a similar style of "Smoke-In"
http://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.ph ... 0&type=top
What we need a similar style of "Smoke-In"
http://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.ph ... 0&type=top
From the article:
Get yourselves organized and elect enough representatives to overturn the ban. It's really pretty |expletive| simple.
-Big E
And, unfortunately, 70% or more of the population routinely votes the other way on this one. It's amazing that people can whine about the government taking away their rights out of one side of their mouth, and then yammer on about the fact that THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT out of the other side of their mouth.Drivers honked their horns as they drove by as signs and shirts saying "we smoke, we vote" were on display.
Get yourselves organized and elect enough representatives to overturn the ban. It's really pretty |expletive| simple.
-Big E
Stable genius.
I can GUARANTEE my 2 year old will die a heck of a lot sooner than ANY of you if he comes into contact with peanuts at Dairy Queen, Texas Roadhouse or any Chinese restaurant. Â And yet, I can ALSO guarantee none of you will be out there standing up for his "right" to get ice cream, lunch at the Roadhouse or any Chinese food. Â Just admit that you really care about nothing but demanding people accommodate your wishes and cater to YOUR needs. Â At least, you will be honest about it.
You're right, he has the right to avoid contact with peanuts in a public place just as we have the right to avoid carcinogenic tobacco smoke in a public place. The difference is that when you walk into a Dairy Queen, no one throws a handful of peanuts into his face. When you enter a smoke filled room, you have no choice but to inhale cancer causing chemicals.
Peanuts don't kill all humans, smoking does kill all humans. A smoking ban isn't some minority pushing an agenda on the majority. Seriously, we get it: you hate the government because they are out to control your life and take your all money roar scary monster nom nom x 10. So when are you going to move to that cabin in the woods of Montana and start sending out packages?
It's a representative democracy, the people, via their representatives, have spoken. If you don't like it, try and get someone else elected. Don't go making fallacious and demagougish arguments.
Peanuts don't kill all humans, smoking does kill all humans. A smoking ban isn't some minority pushing an agenda on the majority. Seriously, we get it: you hate the government because they are out to control your life and take your all money roar scary monster nom nom x 10. So when are you going to move to that cabin in the woods of Montana and start sending out packages?
It's a representative democracy, the people, via their representatives, have spoken. If you don't like it, try and get someone else elected. Don't go making fallacious and demagougish arguments.
-Peanut dust is in the air. Â It is even worse at Texas Roadhouse.Swift wrote:You're right, he has the right to avoid contact with peanuts in a public place just as we have the right to avoid carcinogenic tobacco smoke in a public place. The difference is that when you walk into a Dairy Queen, no one throws a handful of peanuts into his face.
-It won't kill everyone with 100% certainty. Â Just like peanut dust won't. Â However, it can kill him and a heck of a lot quicker than smoke ever would.Swift wrote:When you enter a smoke filled room, you have no choice but to inhale cancer causing chemicals.
-Drama much? Â Show me where everyone of us is going to die from being around smoke. Â After all, ALL humans die from it.Swift wrote:Peanuts don't kill all humans, smoking does kill all humans.
I am not talking about the minority or the majority. Â Besides, are our laws not set up to protect the rights of the minorities?Swift wrote:A smoking ban isn't some minority pushing an agenda on the majority.
-Resorting to ad hominem now?Swift wrote:Seriously, we get it: you hate the government because they are out to control your life and take your all money roar scary monster nom nom x 10. So when are you going to move to that cabin in the woods of Montana and start sending out packages?
-PLEASE don’t tell me THIS is the reason you think it is okay. Â I could spend all day listing examples of how this is a flawed argument.Swift wrote:It's a representative democracy, the people, via their representatives, have spoken. If you don't like it, try and get someone else elected. Don't go making fallacious and demagougish arguments.
- nativeomahan
- County Board
- Posts: 5322
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
- Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta
Exactly. Although if you rent, I have read recently that many apartment complexes and multi family building units are going smoke free. It has to do with insurance rates as well as second hand smoke seeping in to where others live. But this is not government, this is private landowners clamping down. Â A large percentage of building fires are caused by people who smoke, or kids who play with matches belonging to people who smoke.Twiztid1 wrote:Exactly. I think it's scarier that government can tell you what you can and can't smoke in your OWN HOME.
Not to go after your self proclaimed hatred of inconsistencies, but you think someone should be able to smoke pot in their house, but this same person should not be able to buy their own building and decide if they want customers to be able to smoke in it.Twiztid1 wrote:Sorry, I should have said house instead of home. People drive me nuts on this argument with their inconsistencies. They don't want government to protect people from someone else' second hand smoke. But they don't have a problem with government protecting people from themselves in their own house. Is a guy smoking marijuana in his living room really a threat to the American dream? Conservatives are way too concerned about who you can marry. And of course they want government censorship to protect people from their television. Sorry, but indoor public smoking is the wrong battle to pick. It's done in almost every other place. Why should restaurants and bars be excluded?