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

[ShaggyDoo]

My state, Washington, recently banned smoking tobacco in public places, restaraunts, cafe's, buildings and other public structures. You also cannot smoke within 25 feet of a window door. I was curious if people here thought that this hurts the effort to legalize/decrimnalize marijuana? Of course there are tons of other factors damaging this effort but do you think you can credit smoking ban's for some of the damage?

[SLammon420]

maybe so. people who are really anti-tobacco tend to be even more anti-marijuana. not all, but alot. all of these people on the TRUTH commercials, god only knows what they think about herb.

[woodsman]

Yes, banning anything like that is an infringment of liberty, if they infringe on one liberty, they will infringe on all liberty.

[TheShow]

^^^I disagree. Cigarette smoke being banned in a public place (be it a restaurant or office buliding) is not an infringement of liberty. You should be entitled to smoke but not at a place I am going to if I don't want the smoke and smoking/nonsmoking sections really didn't do much. In colorado, this summer the smoking ban went into effect. Smoking is not allowed anywhere but a place (bar of smoke shop) where tobacco made up 5% of sales in the previous years. yet, we have recreational possession on the ballot this year and its too close to call if it'll pass.

[woodsman]

The only thing I have to say about that is some believe in liberty, and some don't.

[TheShow]

polluting the air in an enclosed space that has significant impact on my health and every other patron and worker is a liberty that ought, no MUST, be held higher than an individuals desire to light up a cigarette wherever they choose.

[woodsman]

It's not your place to say. You don't own every restuarant in Colorado. Neither does your state government. The only person who can rightfully make that decision is the private owner of the facility, who has sole discretion of what customers he wants to cater to.

It's not a government issue. And I absolutely refuse, under any circumstances to live in a fascist police state, which the USA is quickly becoming because of fascist policies like this.

(The UK can do what ever it wants as far as I'm concerned, I don't live there and their nation was founded on different standards than ours.)

[woodsman]

Why is this just becoming an issue now in the 21st century after people have been smoking for the entire 200+ year history of our nation?

And I looked at your profile, Show, You call yourself Ultra Liberal. I don't know how you can take on a title like that when you advocate the destruction of centuries old liberties which the government has no business regulating in the first place.

Keep in mind, liberal means Liberty, not Fascism.

[woodsman]

Getting back to the point, if they can ban one plant, they can ban any plant. This new wave of anti-freedom legislation is definitely harming our efforts to legalize Cannabis.

[freeinalaska]

I have no problem with tobacco smoking being banned in any establishment providing the owner of said establishment is deciding on the ban and not the government.

As woodsman says, anti-freedom legislation will harm efforts to legalize marijuana.

[USA in decline]

Yes, banning anything like that is an infringment of liberty, if they infringe on one liberty, they will infringe on all liberty.BINGO!

[TheShow]

I don't think three posts was necessary but hell you're free to do what is necessary in your eyes. Why is this an issue now? that's a good question really, I think a lot of it has to do the realization on the part of society about the negative impacts of cigarette smoke. I'm not quite sure. What is a liberal? someone who promotes liberty? um no not exactly, the political ideology that upholds liberty as the highest value would be that of a libertarian on the exact opposite end of spectrum from a liberal, but glad to see you are such an informed citizen. liberal ideology advocates progressive reforms to the status quo to benefit society. once again, the right to smoke tobacco in an enclosed PUBLIC space is not a liberty that should be upheld over the health of a greater number of people. I don't own every, let alone one, restaurant in Colorado. however, my business helps them to stay in operation and provides the server with more money to live their life. There are still places a smoker can go to enjoy their food and tobacco, a place that has historical demonstrated a large smoking membership of patrons. I'm not sure how you can advocate anything over the health of society, especially the consumption of a product that heavily funds the right wing portion of government.
The idea is to keep those who do not want to be exposed to smoke all the time a large variety of truly smoke free establishments and it hasn't harmed any business here.

They are not banning tobacco, buddy. They are simply saying where it can not be used. When marijuana becomes legalized I do not believe that you should be able to smoke whereever you want. But i guess you were all up in arms when federal law made it illegal to smoke on airplanes, weren't you?

[woodsman]

BINGO!Thank you for your support.

[TheShow]

As woodsman says, anti-freedom legislation will harm efforts to legalize marijuana.Last november, denver voters approved a tobacco ban in enclosed public places along with seating at ball parks, etc. Yet in that same election they legalized personal possession of a single ounce of marijuana to be smoke in personal dwellings. The evidence obviously shows against your flawed argument.

[woodsman]

They are not banning tobacco, buddy. They are simply saying where it can not be used.Splitting hairs a bit, aren't we?

[TheShow]

Not at all. There is a huge difference in banning a plant or substance and saying where it can be used.

[woodsman]

They are saying you can't use it anywhere. They even have outdoor bans in some of the more backward parts of the country, (like the nearest town to were I live)

Like it or not, that's what you call a ban.

[TheShow]

An outdoor ban is very different from what I've been advocating, and I'm honestly not informed enough on outdoor bans. However, there are some outdoor bans I think that are necessary. For example, a football stadium with 75,000+ people sitting very closely needs to keep people from smoking in the seat areas, which has already been the case. A crowded sidewalk in a downtown area, especially, does not need to pollute the other sidewalk users. Plus don't forget the cigarette butts people just scatter on the sidewalk. Most places of the country you can't consume alcohol walking along the street, why aren't you whining about that ban?

[KParker730]

Boulder has had a ban on smoking in public places for a long time now. It is so weird to go somewhere out of state now and to have people smoking next to me. I think that this should be a nation-wide thing, because my lungs are more important than ur nicotine! Weed is completely different, people don't smoke weed like they smoke cigarettes, because it makes you intoxicated. Also, theres a lot less risk of second-hand smoke because people arent going to be lighting up in a restaurant with little kids at the next table.

[woodsman]

If you don't like it, you are free to go to a non-smoking facility. That is the nature of a free country.

But a bunch of people, behaving as a mob and saying this is the way it's going to be and you are going to obey us is not freedom, it's a state of fascism.

[TheShow]

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.

[woodsman]

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.

[TheShow]

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?

[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.

[TheShow]

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.

[woodsman]

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.

[TheShow]

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?

[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.

[TheShow]

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.

[USA in decline]

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 .

[TheShow]

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.

[medicalbud]

maybe so. people who are really anti-tobacco tend to be even more anti-marijuana. not all, but a lot. all of these people on the TRUTH commercials, god only knows what they think about herb

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)

[High Priest]

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...

[*Koby*]

Getting back to the point, if they can ban one plant, they can ban any plant. This new wave of anti-freedom legislation is definitely harming our efforts to legalize Cannabis.




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.

[bobdylan08]

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.