• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Rafael Smoking Ban, Strictest In The Nation, Goes Into Effect

opendebate said:
I don't really think government is the boogeyman. I think it's a mix of different people with different motivations and different intentions like anything else. I do however think that if anything can bring out the worst in someone, it's a little power, so anyone who has any is worth keeping an eye on.
Click to expand...

It's not a boogieman, it's an institute interested in the expansions of it's own power and domination of the people. The course of government ain't nothing new.
 
opendebate said:
I don't really think government is the boogeyman. I think it's a mix of different people with different motivations and different intentions like anything else. I do however think that if anything can bring out the worst in someone, it's a little power, so anyone who has any is worth keeping an eye on.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but there sure seems to be times where they come off as being a boogieman.
 
radcen said:
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but there sure seems to be times where they come off as being a boogieman.
Click to expand...

and I don't necessarily disagree with that.
 
opendebate said:
So this is interesting.

"Last week, the San Francisco suburb made active a smoking ban that officials say is the strictest in the country, prohibiting smoking cigarettes in your own home.

The ordinance specifically bans smoking in dwellings that share a wall with another unit, including apartments, duplexes and condominiums. The hope is to eliminate second-hand smoke from creeping through doors and windows, ventilation systems, floorboards and other susceptible openings. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report, secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, including 430 infants.

The San Rafael City Council unanimously approved the ban last year."

This seems pretty extreme to me but at the same time I can understand the rationale. It seems to me that while someone has every right to smoke if they chose and expose THEMSELVES to the health risks associated with it they do not have the right to make that choice for me.

I do wonder thought if they could have accomplished protections from second hand smoke in a less invasive way.

What are you thoughts?
Click to expand...

I support this.
 
Goshin said:
They have no right to ban you from using a legal product in your own home.


There is simply no justification at all. None.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the essence of libertarianism though, tyranny at the sub-national level?
 
opendebate said:
So this is interesting.

"Last week, the San Francisco suburb made active a smoking ban that officials say is the strictest in the country, prohibiting smoking cigarettes in your own home.

The ordinance specifically bans smoking in dwellings that share a wall with another unit, including apartments, duplexes and condominiums. The hope is to eliminate second-hand smoke from creeping through doors and windows, ventilation systems, floorboards and other susceptible openings. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report, secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, including 430 infants.

The San Rafael City Council unanimously approved the ban last year."

This seems pretty extreme to me but at the same time I can understand the rationale. It seems to me that while someone has every right to smoke if they chose and expose THEMSELVES to the health risks associated with it they do not have the right to make that choice for me.

I do wonder thought if they could have accomplished protections from second hand smoke in a less invasive way.

What are you thoughts?
Click to expand...

Nonsense law.

Tailpipe emissions from cars are FAR worse than cigarettes.

Yet now you can't smoke in an apartment next to the frickin freeway.

Insurance companies don't like smoking, so they sponsor nonsense like this.

I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone ever got cancer from a neighbors secondhand smoke.
 
Lursa said:
That is your opinion on what you choose to find acceptable. With that line of thinking, we should just not inform people of radium in their homes, or try to reduce pollution, or subject people to noxious fumes anytime. This is about one individual infringing on another individual...not the entire environment.

Sorry, that 'theory' doesnt fly but it's fine for YOU if you wish to accept it.
Click to expand...

I think you mean Radon, but nevertheless, it's already code in every place I've lived in CA that apartments and the like NOT share ductwork and any place where smoke is getting through the walls is not code to begin with.

If cigarette smoke is getting through a whole lot of other stuff that may also be dangerous to your health is as well. There's a bigger issue - the building you're living in is not up to code.

Btw, you have radium in your dwelling by code. It's in all those mandated smoke detectors. Not to mention the stew of poisons in your new fancy green lightbulbs.
 
What if...? said:
Nonsense law.

Tailpipe emissions from cars are FAR worse than cigarettes.

Yet now you can't smoke in an apartment next to the frickin freeway.

Insurance companies don't like smoking, so they sponsor nonsense like this.

I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone ever got cancer from a neighbors secondhand smoke.
Click to expand...

I don't know if my neighbor's second hand smoke will give me cancer, but it certainly did a pretty good job of making my entire place smell like Satan's asshole before I got him to stop.
 
specklebang said:
Every home will need regular searching to be sure the law is being followed. Maybe they can force everyone to install smoke alarms like they have on airplane toilets.

A true boon for law enforcement.

I wonder if they will grandfather the properties that are privately owned? I live in a townhouse and share walls (but not ducting) with the units immediately adjacent. Would I have to move or quit smoking in my own home? Seems a bit draconian but within another decade, I expect full scale nannyism will be the norm in America.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would be anything so extreme as doing SS style house to house searches. I'm thinking it's more along the lines that when a neighbor complains he'll have the support of the law.
 
Cardinal said:
I doubt it would be anything so extreme as doing SS style house to house searches. I'm thinking it's more along the lines that when a neighbor complains he'll have the support of the law.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I was just engaging in drama for entertainment purposes. Although I suppose that this is inevitable, although not imminent. When there are a billion Americans (in my lifetime alone, we more than doubled) so that day will come. Look at all the changes that have been made in the last 40 or 50 years in terms of restrictions on behavior and cries for social order so, let me put it this way, if they diud search everybodys houses regularly, crime would pretty much end as a phenomenon. Just saying...
 
specklebang said:
Sorry. I was just engaging in drama for entertainment purposes. Although I suppose that this is inevitable, although not imminent. When there are a billion Americans (in my lifetime alone, we more than doubled) so that day will come. Look at all the changes that have been made in the last 40 or 50 years in terms of restrictions on behavior and cries for social order so, let me put it this way, if they diud search everybodys houses regularly, crime would pretty much end as a phenomenon. Just saying...
Click to expand...

A few episodes of "Lockdown" will probably change your mind about that last part.
 
Cardinal said:
A few episodes of "Lockdown" will probably change your mind about that last part.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar and a Google search offers too many options.

I am not advocating a police state, I'm merely hypothesizing one based on extrapolation. I probably should take a Xanax and call myself in the morning.

Do you not think we'll be a (hopefully benevolent) police state in another, say, 100 years? Imagine the technology they'll have by then to watch you. Irresistible, no?
 
specklebang said:
I'm not familiar and a Google search offers too many options.

I am not advocating a police state, I'm merely hypothesizing one based on extrapolation. I probably should take a Xanax and call myself in the morning.

Do you not think we'll be a (hopefully benevolent) police state in another, say, 100 years? Imagine the technology they'll have by then to watch you. Irresistible, no?
Click to expand...

It's our growing insecurity and need for safety, I think. You can see it in how we raise our children now vs. 75 years ago. In fact, just compared against the way we raise today's kids my own childhood was goddamn Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

Lockdown is an ongoing documentary series you can find on Netflix about the different penitentiaries in our country. Of note is that no matter how restricted the freedoms of the inmates, they're still able to run a thriving criminal and black market underground.
 
Cardinal said:
It's our growing insecurity and need for safety, I think. You can see it in how we raise our children now vs. 75 years ago. In fact, just compared against the way we raise today's kids my own childhood was goddamn Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

Lockdown is an ongoing documentary series you can find on Netflix about the different penitentiaries in our country. Of note is that no matter how restricted the freedoms of the inmates, they're still able to run a thriving criminal and black market underground.
Click to expand...

I guess that capitalism can not be chained. Remarkable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom