daquixers_is_back Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 What law, which state law or do you want to know about the federal law? 839223[/snapback] As far as the law goes, I have never seen a low prohibiting "being" high (unless your driving a car - DWAI). In fact a quick search of legal articles and I found nothing. I assume its just the possession of marijuana. And when I'm driving in my Jeep, exactly how are you affected by my smoking???? 839230[/snapback] How did I know you were going to come in this thread and start making sense?
X. Benedict Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Without the 2nd Amendment, there is no other amendment. 839228[/snapback] They had guns when they had the 18th.
Tod Flanders Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Why should a legal product like cigs be taxed at a much higher rate than, say, chewing gum or french fries, or 2 by 4"s... 839269[/snapback] Smoking bans and so-called sin taxes are two different subjects entirely. Again I am merely stating the basis of the legality of a smoking ban. To answer your question on why taxes are higher on smoking A) The reason reason is to discourage people from smoking becuase it's bad for them B) The real reason is that they can hide behind the fake reason to raise tax revenue.
bills_fan Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 No I am right. I am not stating that I support or oppose the law I am pointing out that the basis of the law is the health affects upon others who choose not to smoke not the health affects on those who choose to smoke. Fast food does not have the same bans becuase if you're eating fast food the fat and cholesterol does not enter my body. Once again I am merely explaining the basis of the anti-smoking laws which is why smoking has been banned in the workplace and in many states bars and restaurants. 839258[/snapback] You are correct in your assessment for the basis of certain anti smoking laws. However, this particular law goes even further in that I would not be permitted to smoke while driving through this particular city in my own Jeep. Thus, it does not follow the previous basis. Secondly the fast food and cholesterol of which you speak does not enter your body, but you will be paying for it in the long term through increased health care costs for those who choose to consume the fast food on a near daily basis.
meazza Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 As far as the law goes, I have never seen a low prohibiting "being" high (unless your driving a car - DWAI). In fact a quick search of legal articles and I found nothing. I assume its just the possession of marijuana. How did I know you were going to come in this thread and start making sense? 839274[/snapback] There is no way to actually prove that you are high at the moment.
bills_fan Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 How did I know you were going to come in this thread and start making sense?
daquixers_is_back Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 There is no way to actually prove that you are high at the moment. 839289[/snapback] Yeah im not sure if there is any way to tell ... chemically or otherwise?
Tod Flanders Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 You are correct in your assessment for the basis of certain anti smoking laws. However, this particular law goes even further in that I would not be permitted to smoke while driving through this particular city in my own Jeep. Thus, it does not follow the previous basis. Secondly the fast food and cholesterol of which you speak does not enter your body, but you will be paying for it in the long term through increased health care costs for those who choose to consume the fast food on a near daily basis. 839283[/snapback] I agree with you, they are using the basis of anti-smoking laws are drawing them out too far in my opinion. But it's the concept of how second hand smoke affects non-smokers that they using to ban smoking everywhere but in the privacy of your own home. Using this reasoning to ban smoking in your car and not your home is rather stupid since the air in your home also escapes to the outside world. Once again I was not, nor have I ever defended this proposed law PS: Funny you should mention the healthcare costs associated with fast food. Some studies have suggested that smoking actually lowers healthcare costs as smokers tend to die early and it is the elderly that require the most healthcare as they age.
Chilly Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Even when your outside ... I can be walking down the street and still get a huge puf of smoke in my face. One persons "freedom" should not infringe on another persons right to live a healthy life. By your thinking, there would be no DUI limit, no drug laws, ... etc 838425[/snapback] You do realize that you can cross the street, right?
Tod Flanders Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 As far as the law goes, I have never seen a low prohibiting "being" high (unless your driving a car - DWAI). In fact a quick search of legal articles and I found nothing. I assume its just the possession of marijuana. How did I know you were going to come in this thread and start making sense? 839274[/snapback] There are many public intoxication laws in this country where merely being under the influence (at least in public) is illegal
daquixers_is_back Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 You do realize that you can cross the street, right? 839299[/snapback] You realize you could simply not drive when drunks might be on the road, right? Or simply not go to a Bills game with your kid because there could be someone drunk there that could hurt him/her. P.S. after some quick research, apparently they CAN test your body for Marijuana.
Chilly Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 You realize you could simply not drive when drunks might be on the road, right? Not a fair comparison for a number of reasons, including the fact that space on the road is limited and you can't freaking tell when you leave your house if theres a drunk driver on the road. Or simply not go to a Bills game with your kid because there could be someone drunk there that could hurt him/her. 839301[/snapback] Yup. The Bills = a private organization that can do as they please. And yes, parents who take young kids to sporting events that they can't handle are stupid.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Not a fair comparison for a number of reasons, including the fact that space on the road is limited and you can't freaking tell when you leave your house if theres a drunk driver on the road.Yup. The Bills = a private organization that can do as they please. And yes, parents who take young kids to sporting events that they can't handle are stupid. 839303[/snapback] Are you a conservative?
meazza Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 You realize you could simply not drive when drunks might be on the road, right? Or simply not go to a Bills game with your kid because there could be someone drunk there that could hurt him/her. P.S. after some quick research, apparently they CAN test your body for Marijuana. 839301[/snapback] Yes they could tell if you have smoked in the last 3 months. They can't tell if you're high at the moment. Well, that's what I heard.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Yes they could tell if you have smoked in the last 3 months. They can't tell if you're high at the moment. Well, that's what I heard. 839312[/snapback] I wasnt sure either .. I gave my mom a call (she is a neuro tech) and she said they can do a HCG Urine test witin 24 hours of you smoking to tell. Not sure if that helps what were talking about though.
Chilly Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Are you a conservative? 839309[/snapback] I'd consider myself a subscriber to classical liberalism.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I'd consider myself a subscriber to classical liberalism. 839317[/snapback] haha ok then.
Fan in San Diego Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Should we ban busses and cars too, for fear that you might breath the exhaust? 838430[/snapback] I'm all for banning buses. They create way more pollution that they save.
Chef Jim Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I'm all for banning buses. They create way more pollution that they save. 839323[/snapback] Not in San Francisco
X. Benedict Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I'm all for banning buses. They create way more pollution that they save. 839323[/snapback] They save their pollution. Dumb if you ask me.
Recommended Posts