Do you think Tobacco Bans impedes the legalization / decriminalization of marijuana?

but that is the problem, the severe lack of smoke free establishments. prior to the enactment of the co smoking ban this past july, I did not know of one bar in the denver metro area that was smoke free; now a majority of them are. Most restaurants would put you in a smoke-free section where the smoke would still drift; now I can enjoy the taste of a finely cooked meal. A society which can go against the wishes of big business, especially big tobacco is free; not in your world in which every tobacco loving schmoe should be allowed to inflict serious medical issues upon everyone else.

 

If there aren't enough establishments, then in a free society you would be free to start your own.

As afr as serious medical issues are concerned you should stop listening to every piece of brain-washed dribble that that some anti-tobacco jack-ass would have you believe simply to futher their own political agenda.

Keep in mind there are alot of people who stand to make a lot of money by seizing control of the tobacco market.

Well one thing is for sure, they are not going to get rich off of me.

Here is a message for everbody:

OPPOSE THE BANS

Whether they be for tobacco or cannabis.

 

because it is so simple to open your own bar/restuarant. Beyond the required start up capital, there's a place of business, staff, all the required insurances, a liquor license which can be incredibly difficult depending on where you live, etc. so no in our society not any schmuck is able just to open their own estabishment.
So you're saying tobacco smoke doesn't carry serious health risks? because it sure sounds like that is your point, then you are the one who needs to stop believing that everything you hear from government sources is just to proomote an agenda and is "brain-washed dribble." I've seen very few people, and none of them intellectuals, refute the dangers of cigarette smoke. There are a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money by keeping tobacco as the dominant control in personal life and the government such as dining at a restaurant, which would be the utmost infringement of liberty which intially was your big issue but has since been dropped, hmmm.
Tobacco bans serve a societal purpose, as do laws on liquoiur which you never responded to the infringement of being able to publicly consume alcohol, hmmm. Speed limits serve a purpose, too. They violate your so called liberty of driving at reckless speeds.
Cannabis shouldn't be permitted to be smoked whereever a person desires, either.

Are you a tobacco consumer mr woodsman?

 

Yeah, it's hard to start a business in this country. All the more reason to advocate for a free society.

Less regulation = people can do more stuff.

 

So let's say you remove all regulations for a business, no insurance (which has plenty of possible problems which are easily seen and thus need not be listed), no liquour license (probably not a huge loss, just more places selling booze), etc. It is still tough to start a business even in your non-regulated society. This sort of business practice would be a step backwards.

 

Non-regulation worked for more than a century and a half in this country. It's too bad that your not familiar with the founding priniples of our nation, like the importance the founding fathers placed on individual freedom.

But it's like I said before, some believe in Liberty, some don't.

 

Global society has changed significantly since then. We cannot be stuck in the 18th Century; we must adapt to what knowledge is learned. As for my supposed lack of knowledge about our founding principles, that is laughable. The founding fathers did supprt individual freedom to the extent where it does not infringe on the natural rights of another person. However, "the blessing of liberty" is not their only point of importance. before liberty in the preamble to constitution is an important phrase "promoting the general welfare". What is welfare? welfare includes a person's health, and their overall well-being. The founding fathers would advocate the infringement of some liberty if it infringed on a greater liberty of more citizens, which has been my argument from the beginning.

Are you a tobacco user mr woodsman?

 

Once we loose our founding principles we have lost everything as a nation. Therefore we must preserve as many individual leberties as we can.

And would you like to tell me what any of this has to do with the decriminalization of marijuana? If it's all the same to you, I'd like to get back to the actual subject of the thread. There are several other threads that have to do with tobacco issues.

 

But those individual liberties cannot infringe on other greater rights of man. The right to health is far superior to the right to smoke cigarettes in an enclosed public domain.

Well the original question was the impact of a cigarette smoking ban on weed legalization, this is where you first spouted off about liberty, and I refuted with concrete examples of Colorado, and you went off on liberty again, so i responded and then it went in a different direction and you've led us here, I was just responding to your claims.

Are you a tobacco consumer mr woodsman.

 

The problem of a smoking restaurant could be fix if you remove @ air and inject only fresh air "after being cooled or heated" the place well never get stuffy with smoke your electric bill well be higher but you could pass the difrence to customer . customers well pay knowing they can smoke with out being or bothering some one alse .

 

it would help but it wouldn't fix the problem entirely, a person sitting next to me at the bar puffing on his cigarette isn't being entirely alleviated by the air system.

 

One thing unlike on the TRUTH commercials persons cant like with cig do the body bag thing.

Does not kill thus empty body bags don't scare kids LOL.


How cigs are legal and pot is not I'll never see how so many say no on pot smoking but yes to smoking cigs.

450k in USA die from cigs a yr just in USA and we have only 300million+

A pack of cigs is in the bigger more money cities avg after tax 5-7+

You don't get drunk off them or high (Yet)

Cost more than real drugs and no high.

I am down from 2 plus a day packs to 8-12 cigs a day, even better at 35 time to try to make it to ( 100 age)

 

TRUTH is junk just by the fact that they use scare tactics in the name of "TRUTH".

Also, I think the smoking regulations are okay in public places. I mean, they're understandable and ironically it seems that democrats favor them more then Republicans...

Personally, if marijuana was legalized I'd want to see it under the same regulation. Use it but not in public, not at work, etc... Use it responsibly. With that, BEYOND the scare tactics, you can logically have it both ways.

Now back to reality: MJ faces the same problem of scare tactics. It has been demonized much the same as cigarettes. People looking for answers rather than questioning authority usually look for reasons as to why the government would be right...

 

No offense but this doesn't make sense! They are NOT banning the plant, they are restricting the use of the substance in specific areas! If you want to argue on a level plain, you would have to argue them restricting the use of pot at the post office and restricting the smoking of cigarettes. Saying that limiting people from harming the health of others is going to be detramental to the legalization of pot does NOT make sense.

 

speaking of liberties, a person has a liberty to their health. people smoking in public can prevent that. i read a quote that said a designated smoking area in a resteraunt is like having a designated peeing section in a pool. everyone gets the affects.


this would help with the decriminalization of marijuana. if it were legalized, it would be only for personal use and not in public. just my opinion though.