Spain bans smoking - Outdoors!

[sapblatt]

Just say no to prohibition

I don't care either way about cigs or the whacky tobacky - just don't make the hootch illegal.

That is not likely...the first time they tried that everyone drank even more!

 

[BrentD22]

Ggggrrrrrr

I hate ciggarettes, I hate people that think the filter of one isn't trash and can be put out on side walks in front of buildings, at trail heads, thrown out car windows still lite, smokers that stand directly in front of the door of a bar that I would like to enter forcing me to walk through the smell and second hand smoke, smokers that think they have the right to smoke where ever they wish, WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT NOT TO HAVE TO SMELL THAT SMOKE OR INHALE IT? Live Free of Die that applies to the people that don't wish to take part in something too. Being free from smoke in my mind is a good thing, so I say I want to live free (of smoke) or I will be sure smoking dies (more laws passed so I can live free of it).

Let's talk about for a second the crazyness of it all. Ephedra was banned after it cause a small handful of deaths. All of which where associated with on-going health issues or consuming large amounts of the supplement/drug during exercise in extreme heat. I used the supplement and it helped me in many ways and as far as I could tell never harmed me or others around me. Now I can't take it, but smokers can continue to trash our lands, force second hand smoke, and consume medicade dollars from health problems caused by smoking, not to mentiont the 3000 people that die DAILY from it. YA LIVE FREE OR DIE MY ASH!

 

[jbrown]

Now THAT's political. BrentD22, I agree with EVERY word you said. That's all I'm saying on this point.

 

[ripple]

BrentD22
Same can be said about booze. Not defending smokers, but alcohol drains our society also. Drinking driving, destroying families etc etc. Then we could say the same thing about a lot of "products".

 

[BrentD22]

Point about alcohol true, but...

I have never personally had anyone in my family die from drinking, I have had my Mother die from smoking (lung and other cancer), my father suffer from side affects from radiation treatment to battle cancer caused by smoking. To me it's very personal. I do although agree drinking affects our world in many negative ways as well. There are however many laws regarding alcohol and it seems that smokers are now having more laws placed on them.

OK sorry about any political undertones this and the other post have. I pledge to never discuss anything political every again on this site, PROMOISE!

PS - To those who smoke I do not hate you! I only hate the cancer stick you hold in your hand. If you are a respectful smoker that does not impose on other non-smokers I have no issues. I do though say I hope you find a way to cure yourself of your addiction or least cut down!

 

[randomscooter]

total cost, total cost

and consume medicade dollars from health problems caused by smoking

Let's not forget the cost savings that are realized by smokers who don't live long enough to collect SS, to say nothing of eventually getting sick and consuming medicaid $$ from some other cause. The $$ argument is a loser and always has been.

 

[jjmcgo]

A little light teasing

Not smoking apparently causes memory loss. Quite a few posters here mentioned the cost to society of smoking. The tobacco settlements paid the state and federal governments for all damages, past, present and future, caused by smoking. Your politicians signed off on this. A deal is a deal, among honorable people.
The debt has been collected. The fault that the money was misspent and not directed to health-care but rather lowering your taxes in an effort to get your vote is not the fault of smokers.
Those who want to use the "cost of smoking to society" argument are similar to those who wish to drink a full beer from an empty can.
I'm not making a pro-smoking argument, simply asking people to speak honestly and play fair. For those who didn't know about this, now you do.
To Brent22 who asked smokers to be courteous to others, obviously it's a two-way street.

 

[xtraterrestrial]

Using the same reasoning, all backcountry campfires should be banned. They're smoky, stinky, violate no trace ethics, and serve as garbage magnets.

 

[Sleeping Giant]

Excellent point, xtra. What's more, animals don't feel the need to heat their food. Why should we ??

 

[Double Bow]

You're right! And besides you don't need a campfire to heat your food. That's what a stove is for. These days there isn't a need for campfires.

So sure, lets make a deal. How about this, no more campfires will be made if no more cigarette butts will be left anywhere?

 

[dundare]

Well, it must be about fires and not about pollution. I was listening to the World on NPR driving back from the Whites yesterday and they were talking about how Spain was going to fail to meet its Kyoto committments. Specifically, its because they rely so heavily on coal burning power plants and, to top that, many of them are extremely bad polluters even for coal burning power plants. In some towns near the plants, everything is covered with a layer of soot each morning. Pretty hard to believe...

Personally, I do not see how more laws will fix this in the US. There are laws against littering and just look at the sides of the road. Laws that cant be effectively enforced really do not solve anything AND serve to undermine people's respect for the law.

That being said, I feel a bubble of rage coming on every time I see people tossing butts out the windows of their cars...

 

[dave.m]

Can't we abide by the ban on politics on this site? Everyone knows this a contentious subject now. Why start a fight?

In short, the answer is "no", I think.

There are 2 reasons for this imo. First, backcountry issues quickly lead to dealing with competing interests and dealing with competing interests in a non-violent manner leads us to government and law and that leads us to politics. This is to say, I think it is not reasonable to expect folks to discuss backcountry issues without tripping across issues that are either directly or indirectly political in their implications.

Secondly, there is no agreed upon "common sense" understanding of what is and is not political by any group of people, much less among VFTT posters. I work with policy and procedure at my local church where this meta-issue has come up repeatedly over the past 15 years that I've been involved. Currently we disallow members from advocating political parties or candidates but we do allow members to advocate for issues or activist organizations. Moreover, advocacy is limited to stay within certain bounds. All of this to say, that we've had to come out and define the limits fairly explicitly. This current policy statement has been place for about 10 years now and strikes a balance that seems to allow issues to get discussed among our members while avoiding the really nasty stuff that is associated with partisan politics.

Luckily for VFTT, Darren has enough time to clarify his interpretation of political on a case by case basis. Since its his site, I would suggest that in terms of what is and is not allowed, politics is as Darren does.

Hope this is helpful,