Vermont's laws never cease to annoy me (anti-smoking legislation...)
#1
Vermont seems to me the perfect example of what I like to call the intolerant tolerance of liberalism.  In Vermont, one's "rights" are held as sacred, so long as they are in accord with the liberal agenda.  For example, a woman's "right" to have an abortion is protected to the hilt; the "right" to enter into a same sex "marriage" is treasured; etc.

However... I apparently don't have the right to smoke cigars.  Well, not anywhere outside of my own house, that is.  It's truly ridiculous.  Vermont's anti-smoking legislation is among the strictest out there, and it continues to get worse.  At this point, you cannot smoke in ANY public building.  As in, no smoking lounges in the workplace, no smoking in any bars/restaurants/etc., no smoking even in tobacco shops (that's right... you can't even have a cigar bar or lounge in VT... it's illegal), and there are an increasing number of outdoor "areas" where smoking is prohibited.  And to top it all off, I was in touch with the state inquiring about a private club.  My thought was this: have a building (free standing, not attached to any other building) dedicated solely to a cigar club.  It would be a private club, only accessible to paying members who hold a key (or card, or code) to get in.  So the entire point would be for cigar smoking.  No public would ever be admitted.  The response from VT?  Nope... it's against Vermont's anti-smoking legislation.  Unbelievable.  Oh well.

In reality, it's not a big deal.  There are much much MUCH more important things to worry about, as we all know.  However, I do think it's indicative of the irrational nature of liberal thought.  "Want the "right" to an abortion?  Fine.  Want a "right" to marry someone of the same gender?  Fine.  Want the right to smoke?  No -- sorry, we don't like smokers.  They're second-rate citizens."

I'd love to fight this one, but like I said, there are much bigger things to fight for.  Maybe I'll write a letter or two anyways.

Is it that bad in any other states?  What's it like in Europe for smokers?
Reply
#2
This makes sense though, as it involves the burning of substances which are not in the user's control. Do you not think it is wise to have a rule about burning chemicals and a potent drug in areas where others may be? If it were anything else, you would see it as sensible.

If anything, they should allow people to smoke pot in public. At least it smells not unpleasant.
Reply
#3
(09-12-2010, 05:11 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: This makes sense though, as it involves the burning of substances which are not in the user's control. Do you not think it is wise to have a rule about burning chemicals and a potent drug in areas where others may be? If it were anything else, you would see it as sensible.

If anything, they should allow people to smoke pot in public. At least it smells not unpleasant.

I'm all for public smoking bans in restaurants, etc (although a part of me still thinks it ought to be up to the business owner, really).  I was just detailing the extent of the law here.  My issue is that you cannot even have places designated specifically for smoking, even if measures are taken to ensure that non-smokers are never exposed to the smoke.

I despise the smell of pot, by the way.  I'd much rather smell cigarettes (I don't smoke them, but the smoke doesn't really bother me).  Of course, I'd really rather smell cigars/pipes.
Reply
#4
I'm not trying to be argumentative, Herr, but if you're in support of anti-smoking legislation, what do you think about alcohol prohibition?  I'm not saying the two are equal, but alcohol can have very very devastating effects over a very short period of time, whereas tobacco products can have adverse effects over long periods of time if not used in moderation.
Reply
#5
Isn't smoking a mortal sin?  It is self-mutilation, after all.
Reply
#6
(09-12-2010, 09:10 PM)dark lancer Wrote: Isn't smoking a mortal sin?  It is self-mutilation, after all.

I wonder what G.K. Chesterton would think of that suggestion  :o  Actually, he addresses it in "American Morals," IIRC.

I certainly am not qualified to judge the whole of smoking as sinful or not, but to classify occasional cigar/pipe smoking as self-mutilation, definitely not.  I've read several studies from the NCA and a variety of health organizations who all conclude that the adverse effects of occasional cigar/pipe smoking (as in less than 1 per day) are negligible.  In general, cigar/pipe smokers do not inhale, which greatly reduces (or even negates) any lung damage.  The biggest threat is mouth/throat cancer, but again, for occasional smokers the risk is practically non-existent.  You put yourself in much greater peril driving a car than smoking a cigar twice a week!  Occasional smokers are also not addicted (or at least not many).  The intake of nicotine is not enough and not often enough to form an addiction.
Reply
#7
(09-12-2010, 05:11 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: This makes sense though, as it involves the burning of substances which are not in the user's control. Do you not think it is wise to have a rule about burning chemicals and a potent drug in areas where others may be? If it were anything else, you would see it as sensible.

If anything, they should allow people to smoke pot in public. At least it smells not unpleasant

You're kidding, right?
Reply
#8
(09-13-2010, 09:12 AM)Texican Wrote:
(09-12-2010, 05:11 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: This makes sense though, as it involves the burning of substances which are not in the user's control. Do you not think it is wise to have a rule about burning chemicals and a potent drug in areas where others may be? If it were anything else, you would see it as sensible.

If anything, they should allow people to smoke pot in public. At least it smells not unpleasant

You're kidding, right?


What? that wasn't pot they sold you...it was ground up cow chips.
Reply
#9
(09-13-2010, 06:52 AM)PatrickTorsell Wrote:
(09-12-2010, 09:10 PM)dark lancer Wrote: Isn't smoking a mortal sin?  It is self-mutilation, after all.

I wonder what G.K. Chesterton would think of that suggestion  :o  Actually, he addresses it in "American Morals," IIRC.

I certainly am not qualified to judge the whole of smoking as sinful or not, but to classify occasional cigar/pipe smoking as self-mutilation, definitely not.  I've read several studies from the NCA and a variety of health organizations who all conclude that the adverse effects of occasional cigar/pipe smoking (as in less than 1 per day) are negligible.  In general, cigar/pipe smokers do not inhale, which greatly reduces (or even negates) any lung damage.  The biggest threat is mouth/throat cancer, but again, for occasional smokers the risk is practically non-existent.  You put yourself in much greater peril driving a car than smoking a cigar twice a week!  Occasional smokers are also not addicted (or at least not many).  The intake of nicotine is not enough and not often enough to form an addiction.

So then you do concur that it is self-mutilation and thus a mortal sin.

Driving a car is often a necessary thing, smoking is only done to be "cool."
Reply
#10
(09-13-2010, 11:45 AM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(09-13-2010, 09:12 AM)Texican Wrote:
(09-12-2010, 05:11 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: This makes sense though, as it involves the burning of substances which are not in the user's control. Do you not think it is wise to have a rule about burning chemicals and a potent drug in areas where others may be? If it were anything else, you would see it as sensible.

If anything, they should allow people to smoke pot in public. At least it smells not unpleasant

You're kidding, right?


What? that wasn't pot they sold you...it was ground up cow chips.

Probably dried oregano.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)