It's not to protect smokers from themselves, but to
protect others from
being exposed to secondhand smoke.
But is it really? This is the part of the debate I
think has lost its way. I think it started out as
protecting from 2nd hand smoke but quickly morphed
into really a means to get people
Since we are going to be banning substances that are legal, I think there are a few
more public health issues that need to be addressed.
What about the people with respiratory problems, asthma, etc. who can't go places
because of fragrances. I think we should ban all fragrances from the
Tom Thompson wrote:
I guess that smoking must just be the first thing on the slippery slope
of banning personal choices, or is it just that you have a personal
aversion to one but not the other? Soon what, where and probably with
whom we eat will be dictated by government.
[Me]:
I gotta
I agree with Tom Thompson, since we are allowing 'Legal Substances' to be
banned, why not use this police power as a precedent. Let's give our CM's
the power to ban other harmful things. Since we are banning things for
health reasons, and for the good of all, because of their affects upon
others,
On 6/24/04 11:20 AM, Gregory Luce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, before you feel that we are on the road to ban the sun, perfumes,
fragrances, cars, tanning, fast food, coffee, alcohol, plaid boxer
shorts, false teeth, John Tesh CDs, and/or the ability to breath at all,
take a breath and
