I know to a smoker this will seem like simply mean spirited persecution. Any threat to an addiction provokes an emotional response. But it is true that at our park you go to sit at a bench and there is just a halo of butts all around it on the ground.
My personal biggest gripe is all the smokers I see throw the thing away as they walk in a store and they are too damn lazy to step on the thing.
They don't care if it catches the grass on fire and they leave it to burn so there is a cloud to walk through at the entry and you can enjoy it too. I put them right up there with the people who won't flush a toilet so they can share that too.
posted on September 24, 2003 05:53:02 AM new
"Legislation to ban smoking in private cars, with kids on board and in public places like beaches and parks."
gravid, I agree many lack consideration for others in many areas. As you mention, flushing a toilet. But do we really want to start passing legislation to *force* others to do so?
You are right about the mess 'discarding' butts causes. I agree that there is a lack of thoughtfulness on the part of some smokers who don't ask some one sitting next to them if their have a cigarette would bother them. Having consideration for others around us has been dying off for many years, in many areas.
But I'd ask *why* have all the ashtrays been removed so smokers no longer have a proper place to discard their butts? Is that not consideration to those who choose to smoke? Besides paying high 'sin' taxes for cigaretttes, the other taxes paid for by smokers also pay for these public places. These areas are to be enjoyed by all. Why are the desires of some now more important that others?
While I understand it's not only liberals who support no smoking anywhere, it appears to me this continued push to take personal choices away from others is getting to be too much. Liberals don't think parents should be able to decide which school they want to send their children to...because it's said...they aren't capable of making that decision. Now they want the government to regulate whether or not they can smoke in their own cars? And, in the past, in their own homes. But many liberals support legalizing drugs along with smoking pot?
I thought it was liberals who are tired of our personal freedoms being taken from us one by one. Why this need to control others personal habits with more government laws?
Why isn't it being suggested by those so opposed to smoking that 'help' be given to those who wish to stop smoking, just like we do with the drug addicts? They support giving them free needles....programs to help them free themselves from their addictions.
Realizing most smokers would probably like to give up their expensive, unhealthy habit, is the way we want to help them by more government intrusion into our private lives?
posted on September 24, 2003 07:01:43 AM new
I am a smoker and I DO NOT toss my butts on the ground. I usually have a pocket full to discard at the nearest trash can. It also irks me to see them all over the place. We took a bike trip to the Cuyahoga Valley. There's a beautiful marsh with a board walk (aptly called Beaver Marsh). You can walk or ride on it. We sat down on one of the benches to enjoy the beaver damn and the other wildlife only to see butts in the marsh. NO, NO, NO!!! I am more apt to pick up other's butts than to just leave them sit especially when it is in an area that is ecologically damaging.
Not all smokers are inconsiderate. I also do not smoke in the company of others who do not. I don't sit on a park bench and smoke where there are liable to be others around who do not smoke.
It's crazy thinking to blame Liberals for non smoking laws, although those protections are an accomplishment that most anyone would be proud of. Even your very conservative friend, Twelvepole has expressed anti-smoking sentiments.
Helen
Also, butts cause fires and environmental pollution. Trillions are carelessly discarded every year.
posted on September 24, 2003 07:46:53 AM new
helen - Funny how you don't question Cheryl's wanting to sit outside, in a public place, enjoying a beautiful surrounding while enjoying a cigarette. Pretty soon she won't be able to do so as laws like this continue to be enacted.
And I clearly understand that twelvepole and many other right-leaning people also support taking away the rights of smokers. We each are entitled to our own opinion and I've shared many times I don't have a problem with people who don't see things the same way I do.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. This type of legislation is *usually* inacted by liberal 'thinking' people. The article gravid posted says, in the ending sentence, this is being recommend BECAUSE of the 'liter' problem. Just like all the other anti-smoking legislation has been... wrong.
My position is maybe this problem can be dealt with in another manner, other than by legislation to force a change in personal behavior. And I believe removing the ashtrays/trash recepticles has created a problem because people can't discard butts easily as they use to be able to do. I also don't believe this excuse is truly the reason behind this legislation.
So is the position you're now taking that unless smoking is regulated in NYC that there are going to be more forest fires? lol
I'd encourage the continued education about all the negatives of smoking....so people can choose for themselves if they want to quit or not. But legislating our personal behaviors is an infrengement on our personal freedoms of choice.
Your entire comment is based on a misreading of my comment. Read it again -- this time with better comprehension and you will find that I have not suggested banning cigarettes in parks.
posted on September 24, 2003 08:41:49 AM new
I will suggest smoking be banned in Parks as well as in all public places. The second hand smoke contributes to air pollution which is killing the trees. I realize it is not the primary culprit in this but it is a contributing factor.
As to the comment:
"I'd encourage the continued education about all the negatives of smoking....so people can choose for themselves if they want to quit or not. But legislating our personal behaviors is an infringement on our personal freedoms of choice." I assume you support the decriminalization of all controlled substances and the institution of public education programs and outreach for the addicts rather than incarceration for the use of these addictive substances. That way should one choose to use one of the banned substances their freedom of choice will not be compromised as it is currently.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on September 24, 2003 09:18:37 AM new
dave, it's that kind of radical mind set that gives many laughs to many.
The second hand smoke contributes to air pollution which is killing the trees. I realize it is not the primary culprit in this but it is a contributing factor. Yes, second hand smoke is doing so much damage to our trees.....LOL Maybe we should first consider removing all cars, all means of heating our homes by burning wood, campgrounds, every smoke stack in the US, etc. as these have more of an affect, on your trees, than second hand smoke does. LOL But I did get a chuckle out of that statement.
As to the comment: I have always supported continued education in the attempt to keep people from using drugs that will destroy their lives, lead many into crime to support their habits and severely disrupt the lives of those who love and care about them. Yes.
dave, would you also like to return to prohibition of alcohol?
You are obviously aware that the affects of drug/alcohol usage vs cigarette smoking, as it applies to altering ones physical abilities, are quite different.
That way should one choose to use one of the banned substances their freedom of choice will not be compromised as it is currently.
posted on September 24, 2003 09:36:52 AM new
Although a good argument could be made for the banning of alcohol I am not in favor of this, just as I am not in favor of criminal control of other narcotics. I consider it personal choice. I am in favor of regulation (non-criminal). There are already many laws on the books regarding the other crime which accompany drug use as it is practiced today and I believe they are sufficient. In one of the local cities here the trees are replaced every few years as they die from pollution, this is a waste of taxpayer money. Some cities have banned wood fires for decades (NY among them), encourage car pooling etc. The current administration in Washington has relaxed air pollution standards and delayed implementation until 2018. As I stated it is not the primary cause but contributes to the overall problem.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on September 24, 2003 10:23:55 AM new
cheryl - I am having no problem understanding what anyone is saying. Maybe I'm not using the appropriate words to respond back on what's said...but was hoping my general thought would make it's own point. Sorry for using your name in my example. I only used it because you stated you are a smoker.
Are you saying that since *YOU* don't smoke at the marsh or park that no other smokers should be allowed to? And are you agreeing that passing more legislation to control this 'litter' problem is the *only* way this [stated] problem can be dealt with?
Sometimes I get the impression that it's easier for some to *not really state their positions on the issues* [kind of dance around answering the questions asked] that we discuss.
-------------------
dave believes this legislation should be passed, I will suggest smoking be banned in Parks as well as in all public places. The second hand smoke contributes to air pollution which is killing the trees
Even though he would like to see reduced legislation on other addictive drugs ...which are killing people, adding to criminal behavior, spreading diseases, destroying families and lives, etc.
posted on September 24, 2003 11:13:21 AM new
Even though he would like to see reduced legislation on other addictive drugs ...which are killing people, adding to criminal behavior, spreading diseases, destroying families and lives, etc.
------------------------------------
The enforcement of draconian law is killing people, creating criminal behavior, spreading disease and changing family life etc. not the use of these drugs.
------------------------------------
Smoking is not victimless nor are the victims limited to the smoker. Society is forced to assume the financial responsibility of the damages caused by smokers use of this narcotic.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on September 24, 2003 11:17:31 AM new
Even being a rabid antismoker I see the killing the trees arguement as a stretch, but I agree it is futile to prohibit what millions of people want to do. I wish it would work but you have to make them not want it to be effective.
posted on September 24, 2003 12:03:38 PM new
I don't feel sorry for smokers who keep getting hit with more taxes and laws. I have a bus stop in front of my house and the smokers throw their butts on the ground and leave a mess. I'd vote for an extra $5 per pack tax on cigarettes.
posted on September 24, 2003 12:14:39 PM new
This is off topic, but I'd like to see wood fires banned in urban areas. In the winter, the smoke from my neighbor's chimney blows into my yard and if the door or window is open, it smokes up my house.
Only the clean burning logs sold in stores should be allowed.
posted on September 24, 2003 02:00:56 PM new
actually an apartment can have a "no smoking" clause in the lease.
I understand Lind'a view on not more government to control smoking, however there just too many smokers who do not control their habit and do smoke in inappropriate areas and do leave their mess.
That is why I firmly believe it needs more laws...
Cheryl, fortunately many fast food places now use bio-degradeble packaging... trash will disappear... cigarette butts don't.
posted on September 24, 2003 02:10:50 PM new
twelvepole
I cannot tell you how many times I pick up the plastic holders from beer cans. Not only are they a hazard to the environment, but to the animal population as well. Littering of any kind should be more stictly enforced. Cigarette butts are only a portion of the problem. I hate going to the park and seeing beer cans or liquor bottles. I hate seeing things that were clearly thrown from people's cars as they drove by. My grandbaby (when she was 4)threw a tiny piece of paper out the window once. We went back and made her pick it up. Hopefully, that has taught her a valuable lesson. I think it has telling by the inside of my Jeep!
We don't need more laws telling people what they can and cannot do. Should there be a law against everything that bothers you? How about for me? If that were the case, I'd make a law against Republicans. What I find amazing is that some people I've seen throwing trash out their car windows probably have very clean homes. Why? Because all the trash is sitting at the side of the road. The laws we already have need to be more strictly enforced. I wonder just how many littering tickets are handed out each year. My guess is not enough.
posted on September 24, 2003 04:09:18 PM new
Laws are definately made for stupid people, which there will never be a short supply of, so when will it end? No more laws!!
posted on September 25, 2003 03:37:33 AM new
Cheryl,
ahhh thanks I had forgotten about that type of trash, it was my understanding that those plastic rings were going to be phased out?
But in reality that trash is easier to pick up than cigarette butts...
