|
|
| Post Number: 31
|
Grinning_Dragon 
rideo draconigena
Group: Members
Posts: 3095
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 20 2004,11:03 pm |
|
   |
Well if you want to get technical about smoking.........
Nicotine gets the body to release dophimine (sp?). This is why nicotine is so addictive. So you better ban that too. How dare the body produce such an addictive substance.
As for your idea of public places, what do you consider public?
A bar or a resturant is not a public place, it is A PRIVATE place, owned by someone, not the gov't. A bar and or resturant can refuse service, can have someone removed, can close the store at 9am if they choose.
A public place would be a city park, a courthouse, ect..
A group of people have NO RIGHT, telling a private person on how to run his business, if they don't like it either go somewhere else, or start your own to your liking.
Whats next, a ban on smoking in your own home when the furnace repairman shows up? PFFFST, I think not....
Boston TeaParty II here we come, oooooo weeeeeeeeee...
--------------
*SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS / MOLON LABE / Se Defendendo
memoria of cado frater ,Semper fidelis
*The object of war is NOT to DIE for YOUR Country, but to make the OTHER BASTARD DIE for HIS...Patton
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 32
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 20 2004,11:23 pm |
|
 |
I'll help you toss the tea Grinning Dragon. The government should stay out of private business more. It is hypocritical though the way we outlaw weed. I don't like it, but you will never stop it and I see minnows point on the contradiction. Legalize it, tax it, control the quality and prevent stuff sprayed with toxins from getting into people. It is stupid to run a "war" on it. It just fills jails and creates criminals the same as prohibition did. I used to support the war on drugs until I was called upon to help abuse the constitution in a raid on a whole town that even involved the Army. Not the Guard, the Army, and that was clearly over the line. When we get so wrapped up in the "cause" that we throw out civil liberties, it is time to step back and look at where we are going and what we are doing. That week, I decided things are going too far on the part of zealots, and I switched points of view. I don't know if pot is a gateway drug like people say, but I know that people all around the world smoke it, and you will never stop it. It is hypocritical to defend alcohol and tobacco and condemn cannabis. It does not even require as much processing as liquor, so technically it is more natural.
Anyway, I know that many will take issue with this, but that is how I feel. 
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 33
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 21 2004,2:05 am |
|
|
I don't see the logic in the "it's natural" arguement. Lot's of things are natural, poison ivy is natural, the venom from a snake is also, lots of things are, but how can that alone make it good or even okay. If you disagree with this statement wait for the misquitos come summertime, or get stung by a group of bees, that should prove my point. Not a good arguement with social policy's, great technique though if your an herbal remedies salesmen.
I'll agree with you though regarding the punishment for drug offense's. Their not working, tougher penalties for possession and small-time distribution are worthless. Besides the financial burden of more people sentenced to jail or prison, for longer and longer mandatory terms it isn't fair, or necessary if a fine and treatment will help someone who has a simple drug problem. Focus on catching big shipments coming into the border, and bulldozing the cartel's mansions!
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 34
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 21 2004,5:26 am |
|
|
Tell me why you don't deserve a fine and treatment for your addiction. Would that help you?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 35
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 21 2004,7:01 am |
|
|
For tobacco, their's no need for mandating (by court order) fine's or treatment unless they're not meeting the age restrictions. It might be better for the person's health in the long run if they quit, but the same can be said of people who eat foods with too much saturated fat or cholesterol. Would you fine or mandate treatment for people who have an unhealthy diet, or who don't excersize?
Your drug of choice minnow, affects your behavior a lot more than me smoking tobacco. Your forgeting that although alcohol is legal for those who meet the age requirement, their are laws if the person's behavior becomes SEVERELY impaired (DUI, public drunkeness, etc.). Also if someone is out of control, they can lose their privilege to drink alcohol and be required to have mandatory treatment.
With the illegal drugs (like pot, meth, heroin), do you think its a coincidence that the more severe the impact on behavior the worse the penalty is? Most of the reasons you give for legalizing pot could be used for legalizing crack or heroin, so minnow, should they be legal also?
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 36
|
cwolff
Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 21 2004,8:52 am |
|
|
Published February 21, 2004
Star Tribune Northern Minnesota Correspondent
DULUTH -- When the Hedins of Duluth recently sat down in a restaurant in Owatonna, 8-year-old Samantha declared: "It smells in here!"
It was smoke -- something the Hedins have rarely whiffed in restaurants since 2001, when Duluth banned smoking in most public buildings.
"My husband and I don't smoke anymore, and we really appreciate not having to breathe it," said Samantha's mother, Debbie Hedin. "My daughter could hardly eat."
Another Duluthian, Gary Koivisto, doesn't like the ban, and he doesn't even smoke. He said it restricts freedom. In his view, restaurant owners should get to choose, based only on what their customers want.
If Duluth's experience is any indication, a similar statewide ban would be loved and hated, would kill some businesses and boost others, and would be challenged and altered repeatedly while everyone slowly gets used to it.
"It's been a huge success for the city," said Greg Gilbert, a City Council cosponsor of the ban. "The vast majority of people love it, and they'd be horrified to go back."
Council Member Neill Atkins, an opponent, said it's hurt a lot of businesses.
"It's been divisive," he said. "It was confusing early on, and a number of mom-and-pop restaurants have gone under partially due to the ban."
Said Zeidan Zeidan, owner of Z's, which caters to a downtown lunch crowd: "We lost 30 percent of our business permanently. And we spent $10,000 for a ventilated room that made people feel like they were stuck in a box."
But restaurants such as the Buena Vista, overlooking Lake Superior, got a boost. "Ten compliments for every complaint," said staff supervisor Jeanna Gagne. "It definitely improved business -- perhaps because our clientele tends to be a little older."
Some smokers fled to neighboring towns without bans. While a statewide ban would put all Minnesotans in the same boat, Duluth still could lose diners to neighboring Superior, Wis. -- especially if the state ban included bars, said Atkins.
"It could be tough on border cities like Duluth and Moorhead," he said. "I don't want to see any more businesses closed and jobs lost."
Voters want it
The ban caused a political tug-of-war that continues to this day. Originally it applied to nearly all indoor public places except bars.
But it permitted sealed-off smoking areas in restaurants, and it allowed smoking after 8 p.m. in the smoking section of restaurants with bars. It also allowed exemptions for restaurants that demonstrated significant losses.
A few of Duluth's 180 restaurants openly defied the ban and got citations. The City Council, in answer to their complaints that the playing field wasn't level, voted to close the loopholes.
But then the local hospitality association collected thousands of signatures, forcing both the ban and its loophole-closing amendments onto the ballot in November 2001.
After a campaign that pitted the American Lung Association and other antismoking groups against the hospitality industry and tobacco giant Philip Morris, a resounding 65 percent of voters chose to keep the ban, and 56 percent voted to keep the amendments that strengthened it.
In a survey sponsored by the Lung Association in January, 63 percent of a sample of city residents again said they like the ban.
But the City Council, responding to continued lobbying by certain restaurants, voted in December to let restaurants allow smoking and sell food off the menu in their bar-area, provided it is sealed off from the rest of the restaurant.
As one of his last acts, outgoing Mayor Gary Doty vetoed the measure. But when the council tried again with new Mayor Herb Bergson, he let it go through.
Gilbert, who voted against weakening the ban, said the amendment "was not a reflection of community attitudes. It was a few elected officials pandering to people who helped elect them."
But voters may get the last word. Gilbert said antismoking groups are working to put a virtually bullet-proof ban on the ballot next fall. It would mandate that every workplace be smoke-free.
Larry Oakes is at loakes@startribune.com.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 37
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 21 2004,11:55 am |
|
|
Glad to see we have our priorites straight like getting a smoking ban, spending more money on debating it, surveying it, arguing it, and it will be challenged in court more than likely. If the ban gets imposed we can all sit in B&B and smell the fish rotting instead. 
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 38
|
Grinning_Dragon
rideo draconigena
Group: Members
Posts: 3095
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 22 2004,12:09 am |
|
|
| Quote | | a raid on a whole town that even involved the Army |
Wouldn't this be a clear violation of the Posse Comitus Act?
| Quote | | I used to support the war on drugs until I was called upon to help abuse the constitution |
You are not the first I have heard this from, I have chatted via internet, and talked, face to face, with countless people who have said the same thing, and have either transfered or just plain quit, due to conscience objector.
One tactic those jack-booted-thugs use, NO KNOCK RAID just gets my blood boiling. Seems to me it violates the 4th Admendment, and quite a few times they have gotten the wrong house, sometimes ending in a wrongful death.
I can also tell you, about the many men and women who serve our Country, that they take their OATH very seriously, and are quite scared of the times we live in, and if things were to come to head, and civil war was to break, said they would fight along side their fellow man against a tyrannical Gov't. But I have also talked with a few that would shoot their own mothers if given the order...
| Quote | | Legalize it, tax it, control the quality |
Seems quite a cash cow, that should be tapped.
Alot of your drug laws, believe it or not were passed due to racism(I know I hate the race card). Not so long ago, one could buy drugs and needles thru Sears®
I myself, could careless if joe blow wants to stay home(<---key word here), and smoke himself silly, or shoot junk into his veins until he bleeds, what he does to his body is his to do with. If he dies in the process, then so be it, natural selection has been enacted....
As for a smoking ban on public places (ie.. private property) this says it best....
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of Life, Liberty, or Property, with out due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.
and to back it up
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE
--------------
*SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS / MOLON LABE / Se Defendendo
memoria of cado frater ,Semper fidelis
*The object of war is NOT to DIE for YOUR Country, but to make the OTHER BASTARD DIE for HIS...Patton
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 39
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2004,6:47 am |
|
|
Nope, drugs are the worst possible crime a person can commit and our mandatory minimum sentencing proves it.
We need more jails, more prisons, more law enforcement officials, more automatic assault weapons, more search warrants, more raids, more investigation, more surveillance, bigger sheriff budgets, more prosecutors and we can win this war! 
Just don't try to stop my cig smokin' and booze drinkin'...K?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 40
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2004,5:28 pm |
|
|
Hey Grinning_Dragon, most people have never even heard of that act. I am impressed, and yes it was a direct violation, and ruined the good faith I had with the government. It is actually the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which was created in a broken nation shattered by civil war, to finally end the army's control of the south, and to ensure that the military is never used on American Citizens, in particular within the borders of our own nation, in a law enforcement capacity. The only exception is supposed to be civil disturbance such as riot. Several times in the recent past within the borders of the U.S. the military has been used directly against our own citizens, all in the name of the war on drugs, or for other reasons for our own "good". Granted the government has already created paramilitary organizations for many enforcement agencies that I am sure were never intended to exist by the constitution, but the Army and Navy are specifically prohibited from being involved, and they are often and routinely used now. That tells me we are heading the wrong way, and that tyranny will be possible if we don't do something. I know several people that have retired early, or simply left over these objections.
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
