Reply
Thu 21 Apr, 2005 03:13 pm
Quote:Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger could be barred from lighting up cigars in the Capitol courtyard outside his office, but if he wants to stroll along a state beach puffing a stogie he won't face the threat of a $100 fine ?- at least not now.
The Assembly Governmental Organization approved a bill Wednesday that would bar smoking in enclosed courtyards in state buildings, including the Capitol courtyard where Schwarzenegger has a smoking tent.
Assemblyman Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, said the bill wasn't aimed at the Republican governor although it would cover him. He said smoke tends to get trapped in courtyards and poses health risks for nonsmokers.
But Assemblyman George Plescia, R-La Jolla, said nonsmokers aren't forced to go to courtyards where people may be smoking.
"It's just as easy to walk to the other side of the building," he said.
Schwarzenegger's office said it hadn't taken a position on the bill, but Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, questioned whether the governor would sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
"He used to use steroids," Vargas replied. "Now he says those things should be outlawed.... If you give people an opportunity to change, they do change."
Will the Repubs blow smoke back in their faces?
They should, I am tired of this nanny state mentality that is taking place. It's bad for me so sets ban it! Why don't you just leave people alone and let them smoke.
Tobacco should be on the banned substance list.
Suicide apparently is okay if you commit it over 20 or 30 years.
I also believe if people want to indulge in a substance proven beyond a doubt to be lethal over time they should be allowed to. Thins the herd.
In fact, I believe all republicans should be furnished with 4 packs of unfiltered Luckys a day, gratis.
Such enmity ....
I don't wish you dead.
I smoke. And I support every legislative move to remove it from public places where my smoke might affect others. I also support high taxation for cigarettes. I also support every possible move to bring tobacco companies and their executives to justice for knowingly (where that was the case) marketing an addictive and dangerous product.
I smoke cigars on an infrequent basis; I don't inhale. I also don't smoke whenever my doing so would bother anyone else. If I'm at a place where tobacco smoke is bothering me, I move, or I don't go back to that place.
I also think people should not be forced to wear seat belts.
Ticomaya wrote:Such enmity ....
I don't wish you dead.
take a joke sweetie...and have a cigar :wink:
Ticomaya wrote:I smoke cigars on an infrequent basis; I don't inhale. I also don't smoke whenever my doing so would bother anyone else. If I'm at a place where tobacco smoke is bothering me, I move, or I don't go back to that place.
I also think people should not be forced to wear seat belts.
I was once in agreement with your last sentence (as was my brother who races formula circuit track). What turned us around was (during the period where our legislation was in debate) an interview with an Australian doctor who ran a clinic for serious back injuries. In his country, seatbelt legislation had led to a decrease in his clinic's business of some 70 to 80 percent. Those this had a huge economic effect on him personally, he'd come to our province to campaign for such legislation. He said that he simply could not deny how much real and severe suffering - and often, ruined lives and families - had been eliminated through legislation which had such a minor effect on personal liberty.
So ... are you pro-choice or not?
There was a lot of noise about helmet laws when i worked in hospitals in the 1970's. With both helmet laws and seat belt laws, for whatever one's personal beliefs may be, there is no denying the incredible costs to be associated with the trauma inflicted during and accident in which a helmet is not worn, or seat belts are not worn. That cost gets borne by us all, and it is enormous.
blatham
That begs the question. Why do you smoke?
Some people know the deliterious effects of smoke on their lungs, yet continue to make the conscious decision to smoke. Don't you agree Set?
Yes, and i defend to the death your right to trash your pulmonary system anywhere you please, other than my apartment.
au1929 wrote:blatham
That begs the question. Why do you smoke?
The question goes begging, it is true.
Setanta wrote:Yes, and i defend to the death your right to trash your pulmonary system anywhere you please, other than my apartment.
I guess I won't be lighting up in your apartment then ..... next time you have me over.
Ticomaya wrote:So ... are you pro-choice or not?
What I'm not is absolutist. Seat belt legislation is a pretty perfect example. Minimization of suffering seems the properly moral/ethical position even if that might sometimes be difficult to evaluate (as in the 'costs' to liberty in such a law weighed against the 'cost' to so many who do/will suffer in the absence of the law - plus the tax burden born by all as Set points to). In the seatbelt case, I don't have much trouble weighing consequences. Other cases can be far tougher, as with abortion.
Taxes and insurance rates, Mr. Mountie . . . remember, we have to pay for that here . . .
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace