And that guy who found that asbestos was bad too.
Is this some sort of defense your mounting for one of NY State’s elected babysitters? I cited his ‘hand-free cellphone’ law (and whether you like it or not - CB radios are still legal in NY) - not asbestos (or over-reaching lead paint laws for that matter).
Don’t you see an absolutist, ‘I know what’s best for everyone’, bullying attitude in proposing laws that regulate individual behavior in (publicly-subsidized) apartments? Slippery slope strawman or not - alot of the arguments I’ve seen in this thread could be used for a ban on smoking in automobiles. Why not? The highways & streets aren’t owned by the drivers, tobacco smoke billows out of passing car windows and those inconsiderate addicts flick their butts everywhere.
Go ahead and defend headmaster Ortiz if you must. In my opinion, ANY idiot who cites “the effects of secondhand smoke that seeps though the walls and ceilings into neighboring apartments” as the reason for pushing a ban on smoking in public housing units is sneaking a few bong hits.
As evidenced in this thread - and in all the other tobacco / smoking train wrecks on these boards - the one thing we can all agree on is we’ll never agree. In the OP, I suggested, “Instead of requiring apartments on the lower floors to be smoke free and allowing smoking on the top floors”. That’s not something reasonable people can agree on? Obviously not - it’s never enough.
I don’t follow. Should we forego all taxes on alcohol sales too? What about any other chemical that the government puts restictions on? Does taxing something count as condoning something? I suppose I can see an argument for that, but I would think a “sin tax” is something that acts to discourage use. Why can’t the governmnet tax something it doesn’t condone?
But where have I ever said that “it can’t be done”? I’m not arguing for a prohibition. Sheesh, I would fight against a prohibition. I think people should be allowed to take whatever personal risk they want. As long as what they are doing isn’t affecting others. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the government to limit drug use when it’s something as invasive as tobacco (smoked…other ways of doing this drug aren’t invasive, so as long as you aren’t spitting your tobacco juice at me, there’s not a lot of justification for putting strict limits on its use).
I’d say so, because the alternative to the government condoning something is for the government to outlaw it. If they extract money from it instead, they’re still condoning it - in fact, they’re choosing to become partially dependent on it.
I don’t think so. IMO, a sin tax is a tax on a product whose demand is driven by people’s “sinful” instincts, so the demand doesn’t go away when it’s taxed. People still buy porn, alcohol, and cigarettes, whether they’re taxed heavily or not.
We could burn them, but then people would complain about the smoke.
These “second-class citizens” are now pondering the same question.
Hehe…quick little hijack on this.
We have a lot of lead at work for sheilding. Some has been here a while and was painted to keep the lead from being exposed. Some of that paint contains lead. OSHA made us remove the lead containing paint from out lead bricks, exposing the lead. Wacky government agencies…
And I’m in agreement with ** Liberal ** which is no small feat, either.
If banning smokin in one’s own house is a good idea because it happens to give some people a headache, then using perfume, burning incense, or as someone mentionned cooking should be forbidden too (amongst many other things).
And contrarily, if you don’t have to give them this right, you can forbid them to use anything that involves fire or that use electricity or gas due to the hazards. Your candle or your iron also is likely to put me at a risk if I live in the same building. You driving a car puts me at a tremendous risk when I walk outside (not even mentionning your disgusting and health-threatening exhausts).
So, maybe it’s not an “all or nothing” issue?
There’s the same thing here. You essentially can’t rent an apartment in France without a deposit (generally the equivalent of two or three months rent). When you leave, the landlord and you inspect the place, and whatever damage is noticed (that does include changing the wallpaper that could have been tarnished by smoke, for instance) is deduced from your deposit.
Should you be allowed to open a restaurant, where the employees will be exposed to carcinogens? Because in case you don’t know, you’re releasing carcinogens too when you’re cooking.
I favor a ban on restaurants…oh…and trucks…their exhaust are a health hazard for the truck drivers.
Of course, burning anything should be banned. It releases carcinogens. You’re under the belief that tobacco is some magical evil substance that release all possible toxic products when burning while everything else you burn just release pure oxygen and pleasant scents?
So, don’t dare making a barbecue in my neighborhood. Nor drive a car, as I already mentioned. I don’t own one, don’t see the need fo it, but living in a big city, I’m actualy inconvenienced by car exhausts and they have a provable negative impact on health and cause many deaths, in particular amongst children, old people, asthmatics, and people having other respiratory issues when there are pollution peaks.
And personnally, I think the incense or barbecue analogy is a perfect one.
A lot of habbits that aren’t utterly necessary affect everyone around. Once again, do you avoid driving in all cases where there’s an alternative solution because the noise, the exhaust, the pollution are displeasant and harmful to me? If you own a car, I’m pretty certain you use it more than you absolutely must and I doubt you feel much concerned about it while doing so. However, it’s one of the things that actually inconvenience me and, I’m convinced, is harmful for my health. Do you not realize it, or do you just not give a damn?
Did you ever use wood for a fire? Could you easily bear the disgusting smell of this vegetal product burning, and did you test the chemicals you were releasing doing so for their potentially harmful effets? What about the fire hazard you were creating?
When I’m inconvenienced by another patron wearing too much perfume in a restaurant, should I mandate a ban on perfume in public places? Do they really need to wear perfume when they go out to eat?
Did you check the composition of incense/barbecue smoke if you ever burned some/prepared one or happened to be near it? By the way, my mother actually get headaches from incense (but not from the evil cigarette smoke, strangely enough). I hope you wouldn’t consider burning incense if you lived in the same appartment complex. The smoke would go under the door and it would inconvenience her. She’s also allergic to pet’s hair but there are other tenants who don’t care about this and still own pets. Can you believe some people are that inconsiderate??? It’s not like their pets and pet’s hair are competely confined within their own appartments. What amount of traces of peanuts butter in the environment could be harmful for somebody strongly allergic to it?
The problem here is that you seem to assume that second-hand tobacco smoke is an absolutely terrible health hazard and an enormous inconvenience for other people barring essentially nothing else, while there’s nothing special about it when compared to many other inconveniences and minor health hazards you’re aren’t as concerned about.
They’re “cretins” because they’re “polluting the air”?? :eek: With tobaco smoke :eek: ?
If you’re that concerned about polluting the air, I certainly hope, as I mentionned before, that you don’t ever drive a car. And seriously reduce your use of eletrical appliance, like, say, air conditionning, for that matter. Because if your major concern is pollution, then you should probably look elsewhere than at lighted cigarettes.