Just a thought. Sort of a two birds with one stone kind of thing.
Or as Ricky would say, "It'll be awsome, get two birds stoned at once."
I saw two "birds" that were stoned one time! (Is that term still used to mean girls?)
Close enough
Just a thought. Sort of a two birds with one stone kind of thing.
I saw two "birds" that were stoned one time! (Is that term still used to mean girls?)
So, smokers are the ones throwing candy bar wrappers and Tims cups, too?
If we outlaw public smoking, all the litter magically goes away? That seems to be what you're saying, because you are blaming all smokers for littering, and trying to connect the two.
Smoking does not equal littering.
Any increase to the price of cigarettes will just result in more smuggling, theft etc. Prices have already reached the "super saturation" point.
Just a thought. Sort of a two birds with one stone kind of thing.
Smoking cigarettes and tossing them on the ground IS littering. They throw them away in a proper location, I don't give a rat's ass if they smoke on the beach. I just don't want to walk all over the butts. And I never said that smokers are the ones throwing candy bar wrappers(and I never even said Tim's cups, so I have no idea where you got that idea from ). Litterers are smokers and non-smokers. But smokers(not ALL smokers obviously, but most of them do) are the only ones throwing the butts everywhere(nothing like seeing a dumped ashtray from a car at the entrance to a public beach).
I don't know if that is accurate. While there is a smuggling problem and a distribution organization of unregulated smokes, I see that as an enforcement problem. Inline with the new governments get tough on crime concept, those caught smuggling or in possession of contraband tobacco products should serve lengthy jail sentences followed by a life time ban on selling tobacco. Don't you agree?
:lol:
But not every smoker is a litterer, and not every litterer is a smoker.
You seem to think that banning smoking on beaches will eliminate littering.
Not really, it's one of these bureaucratic "crimes" that is only illegal because the Gov't. wants to capitalize on it. Jails should be reserved for vicious people who are of danger to the public. It's rather ridiculous tying crime to a product that is in itself legal. :smile:
Unforgiven; The budget has to be balanced and there are only so many services that can be cut before it starts costing politicians jobs.[B said:If we have the jail space why not use it[/B]? The act of thrown a cigarette butt down on the ground isn't legal at all. For those who refuse to carry with them an ashtray that allows for clean and safe disposal of spent butts is a passive aggressive attack on the the public at large not to mention a clear display of disrespect for the law.
Sure why not? When you have all the people locked up for tobacco crimes, what's next? Oh, yeah, I'm sure there are lots of people who cheat playing hearts and scrabble and monopoly, then there's the old people who wander around down town and don't always use the cross walks. Yep, it's high time we spent a few $hundred a day rehabbing these folks. :lol:
It is simply amazing that the logical solution to the smoking/non-smoking problem is not seen clearly, since it it right in front of our eyes:
Designate restaurants, bars, beaches, etc., as SMOKING or NON-SMOKING.
Those who smoke could carefully avoid the non-smoking establishments, and non-smokers could just as carefully avoid establishments where smoking is allowed.
As far as I can see, there maybe two reasons why this probably will never happen: Forced and phony 'equality' and shameless power-grab by all levels of government.
That is what I've always felt. If a guy and his wife who are smokers want to run a restaurant and put up a sign saying "smoking establishment", what is the harm? The only hitch I could see is they may have to sign a waiver to exempt them from benefits for sickness caused by smoke, but it shouldn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to draw that up. :smile:
A lot of the "unregulated" cigarettes are sold by Natives on the reserves, do the police have any jurisdiction to stop that and if so, will they risk the fallout of such enforcement?I don't know if that is accurate. While there is a smuggling problem and a distribution organization of unregulated smokes, I see that as an enforcement problem. Inline with the new governments get tough on crime concept, those caught smuggling or in possession of contraband tobacco products should serve lengthy jail sentences followed by a life time ban on selling tobacco. Don't you agree?
It is simply amazing that the logical solution to the smoking/non-smoking problem is not seen clearly, since it it right in front of our eyes:
Designate restaurants, bars, beaches, etc., as SMOKING or NON-SMOKING.
Those who smoke could carefully avoid the non-smoking establishments, and non-smokers could just as carefully avoid establishments where smoking is allowed.
As far as I can see, there maybe two reasons why this probably will never happen: Forced and phony 'equality' and shameless power-grab by all levels of government.
What happens when you get people going to one or the other expecting the opposite of what is available?
A lot of the "unregulated" cigarettes are sold by Natives on the reserves, do the police have any jurisdiction to stop that and if so, will they risk the fallout of such enforcement?
Problem with that is that once the precedent is set then other laws change based on that precedent. What happens when you get people going to one or the other expecting the opposite of what is available? Workers rights, liability and insurance, there seems to be a lot of possibilities for something like that to go wrong. Granted free will and all, but who pays if the place burns down because someone was smoking? Who would insure the risk and if a place can't get insurance because smoking is allowed on premises, then is there an actionable claim against the insurance industry due to discrimination?
If you can come up with the premiums there will always be someone who will sell you insurance! :smile:
Problem with that is that once the precedent is set then other laws change based on that precedent. What happens when you get people going to one or the other expecting the opposite of what is available? Workers rights, liability and insurance, there seems to be a lot of possibilities for something like that to go wrong. Granted free will and all, but who pays if the place burns down because someone was smoking? Who would insure the risk and if a place can't get insurance because smoking is allowed on premises, then is there an actionable claim against the insurance industry due to discrimination?
But not every smoker is a litterer, and not every litterer is a smoker.
You seem to think that banning smoking on beaches will eliminate littering.