Republicans end Capitol Hill smoking ban

Haha. Clever.

 

I don't know why you always assume, that laws cannot, and are not, often changed. Even concrete parts of society's legal foundation, like the Roe abortion standard, can be overturned. Something like you suggest, would be a simple matter, I imagine, to change, without need of the Supreme Court. Have you never heard of lobbyists? If a particular airline wanted to do this, and there were no aircraft safety issue, I am sure the regulations could be updated, to allow that one exception, for specifically "all smoker" flights. Why don't you recommend it, to some airlines?
I think, though, you are overestimating the demand for this.

I think you are living in the past. The number of smokers (and the percentage of our population, they represent) have dramatically shrunken, since you were "little." I predict more people, today, would go to the non-smoking mall.

Well you could write an email or letter to Amtrak, as well. Once again, though, Train transportation has not been booming, for a long time. I would doubt that, economically, it would seem appealing enough to management, for them to take a chance on it; nor to most customers, to take a train on most trips, over a plane, simply for the sake of being able to smoke. It would also necessitate, that Amtrak set aside specific train cars, to serve exclusively on "smoker" routes.

Getting permission for this, however, from the appropriate office of the Biden Administration (which wants to push train travel-- over autos, at any rate) I would not imagine would be too difficult, for Amtrak.

 

freedom doesn't just apply when you agree with something

yes, the laws changed, they took away the right for businesses to decide for themselves

 

both parties coming around on that one

"John Boehner: From Speaker of the House to Cannabis Pitchman"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/us/politics/john-boehner-marijuana-cannabis.html

 

I don't know the point, of your reply. Freedom is something that we must always be willing to fight for; there are no rights that are freely given to us, that cannot be taken away. So, to your last post's argument, that business should be allowed to do these "smoker only" flights and trains, I explained that I did not see any reason to doubt that, if those businesses wanted to, they could probably get the option to do so. Note the exception, in business no-smoking regulations, for tobacco bars (and even "taverns" in CT). The thing that business can't any longer do, is force non-smokers, to put up with smokers' smoke. And that is about the "freedom" of those non-smokers, to be able to breathe fresh air.

You should be able to appreciate this, considering the name, you've chosen.

 

​

It depends upon what one considers a "significant risk."

Just another bit of nonsense from the extreme rightwingers Trump Republicans sent to Washington.

 

The Fraser Institute is a radical rightwing Canadian think tank. Not a credible source.

 

Good point.

 

They keep him away from whatever it is Marjorie Taylor Greene is on.

 

That's okay. Smoking isn't a sin.

 

No

You can always pull them aside

 

You really think the Congress is going to pass federal gun legislation banning states from passing gun laws?

 

No, but they need to

 

So you're for federal govt controlling states? Huh...very surprising.

 

you can easily avoid a smoker outdoors, that is your freedom, you don't have the right to take their freedom - that is the point

if a bar allows smoking, go to a non-smoking bar, still your choice... freedom

 

that seems like a pretty big flaw in the study then

 

and that in itself makes it easy to avoid by non-smokers if they do not want to be around it

had anti-smokers not gone so extreme and allowed designated smoking areas, the push back would not be here

I think going after vapes has also shows how the anti-smokers are taking this too far - anti-smokers should have been happy smokers turned to vapes

 

Regulations do not typically apply to "outdoors," as far as I am aware, so either you are presenting a straw man argument, or you are failing to cite a reference to laws which ban outdoor smoking. But, even were there to be truth to that, I have already said that outdoor smoking should be allowed, so your repeating this, as far as I can see, serves no purpose.


The other argument you make, is simply a specious double standard. You are defining the choices-- between which, one has the "freedom," to choose-- as to either go in or to not go into, a bar which allows smoking. It should be patently obvious, that I can use the same "freedom" argument, for the other side: you have the freedom to smoke, and not go into a bar or other space, in which smoking is prohibited; or to you can choose to go into that bar, & simply refrain from smoking; you even have the freedom to go in for a while, then come outside to smoke, and then go back in, when you're done. Ain't freedom grand!?

 

We need to license gun possession, not guns. Those guilty of violent misdemeanors and felonies should not be allowed to possess weapons with violations of this law leading to lengthy prison sentences. Others who should not be in possession of weapons include those with dementia, mental illness, and gang members. We should make some knowledge of firearms part of the licensing process, and because gun ownership is in the Constitution, we should make the licensing process free, including the course one may wish to take. Gun owners should be able to take a proficiency exam and skip the course.

I'd like to see guns, especially handguns, be radioactive for the wrong people.

 

they do though, as I explained earlier, people are getting $50 fines for smoking in their own car in a public parking lot

the anti-smokers have gone too far, is about time for some push back

the difference is, you're taking the choice away from the business owner and mandating a non-smoking bar... rather than letting consumers choose with their wallet

that takes away the freedom to choose.... no different from mandating by law that all bars allow smoking

in many areas, anti-smokers are even working to make smoking outside not an option, the anti-smokers have gone too far

not to mention the insane tax on the poor that smoke, over 100% tax on any product is ridiculous

 

I can smell a guy smoking four or five stalls away on an outdoor golf driving range, but I think banning them from smoking is going too far. Anti-smoking laws shouldn't be restricting people from harming themselves.

Vapes are much better, but my neighbor is frequently out on his deck vaping because his wife puts him outside.

 

And I have already said, that issuing a ticket, for smoking in one's own vehicle, is ridiculous. I had asked you, if this was in California-- which you never answered. My argument, if you did not understand, was that this law you cite, is atypical of anti-smoking laws. I cited my own state's laws, which I think are more representative, of laws, nationally; CT lists one's personal vehicle, as a place in which smoking in public is allowed. So I agree, for specifically that one law, in whatever one state it exists-- that is going over the line, with restrictions. This does not mean, obviously, that all other laws, are likewise excessive.

 

Do you have a link showing such? Were there children in the car? I believe there are nine states that have laws against smoking with kids in the car.

 

I'm for the Federal government upholding the Constitution which is what a law prohibiting gun control laws would do.

 

the longest people to have lived were smokers, so we do not know for 100% fact they are harming themselves, though smoking does come with risks too

we could ban beaches as the sun can cause cancer, but we do not as the dose makes the poison

sugar\HFCS(about 50% fructose) can cause fatty liver the same as alcohol, but we do not ban it either, we even allow parents to give it to their kids

I would say most fatty liver today is caused by fructose.... do we need warning labels and a huge tax on fructose