Comments on: Ban on backyard smoking by homeowners?

By: Bill H

Bill H — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 06:21:12 +0000

Laura, you can only take my Citroen CX from my cold, dead fingers.

By: Laura

Laura — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:12:07 +0000

Well, using Legalist’s logic, obesity is harmful to health so fattening foods should be banned ASAP. (uh oh, this person probably already thinks this…). And estrogen is a known human carcinogen, so women should be banned! And men too, they also produce estrogen at lower amounts.

Driving is the most dangerous thing that most of us will ever do, so should we ban driving?

By: Mannie

Mannie — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:23:23 +0000

Legalist 03.01.12 at 5:42 am

The government should ban all smoking–it is harmful to health and must be prohibited, ASAP!

Good. Then I can sell my cigarettes for more!

By: Legalist

Legalist — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:42:19 +0000

The government should ban all smoking–it is harmful to health and must be prohibited, ASAP!

By: adam zur

adam zur — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:44:47 +0000

i notice the person is breathing. That means he is using precious oxygen and adding to the global warming problem by breathing out carbon dioxide which is a known greenhouse gas.

By: smurfy

smurfy — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:08:22 +0000

By forcing the smokers to move inside our government is now choosing to expose the innocent future occupants of the home to third hand smoke in the walls and carpets. I don’t have a dart board handy so I cannot say how many innocent children are affected by third hand smoke annually.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:06:56 +0000

John,

What county is that?

Thanks.

By: boblipton

boblipton — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:01:15 +0000

As a businessman and investor I have the opportunity to make many investments, A decade or two ago, I was offered the opportunity to invest in a topless bar. I went over the numbers, the personnel and the rules under which it operated. Fiscally, it was a sweet deal and all of the people involved seemed to be on the up-and-up. Then I considered whether I wished to profit from this legitimate business. Nothing wrong in people wanting to drink, nothing wrong in people wanting to look at pretty girls’ breasts. Yet there was something about the entire operation that struck me as wrong: by providing capital, I would be enabling people to behave like yahoos who would not otherwise have the chance. It would disturb me to think of my nieces serving in such a joint, with loathsome individuals gawping at them. So I decided to leave the investment to someone who didn’t have these issues. The people found other investors, the business prospered and when we see each other, the friend who offered me the chance always twits me for my decision. I would have made a lot of money.

Yet there would always have stuck with me the impression that I was doing something sleazy. I am pleased with myself for being a bit more than a profit-seeking machine. Mind you, I own shares in companies that produce booze and candy and other products and services that other people consider questionable. That’s their standards. I have mine.

I do not profit from activities which are pure vice. If I think it’s wrong for someone to do something in my apartment, I won’t make money from it. I wish the government were half as moral.

Bob

By: Bob Neal

Bob Neal — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:59:02 +0000

and seriously, I’m a non-smoker who hates the smell, but second hand smoke in the outdoors? It’s so dispersed, there is simply NO way it’s dangerous. None.

By: mjs

mjs — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:48:13 +0000

Richard: Would love to see what passes for science in the analyzation of up to 62,000 deaths each year from exposure to second hand smoke.