Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Should tobacco use be banned on college campuses in Ohio?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(71)

concerned

Mar-13-13 10:45 AM

Grant I think you would probably agree that the real issue is not the government telling someone if they can smoke or not. The real issue is who has the right to decide what goes on within the boundries of the property in question. If privatly owned property who decides? If publicly owned property who decides? I believe that is the real issue and on that point I think we agree, at least on the privatly owned property anyway. : )

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Mar-13-13 8:34 AM

Grant I never said I have a problem with designated out door public smoking areas. Non smokers would know what is a smoking area and if they didn't want to be around it then they shouldn't go in those areas. The oppisite is true of smokers don't smoke in non-smoking areas. Now I think the real issue is who has the right to determine those areas! Privite property I would say those that owned the Property? How about public property? Who do you think should be in control of these type issues on Publicly owned property (including State owned Universities)? FYI Although I personally was glad when smoking was banned in restaurants and indoor venues, for my own selfish reasons I might add. I did not agree with the right of society to dictate to private property owners (ie privately owned property not public owned prop.) what legal activity they could allowed on their own property. Therefore on that basis I did not vote for the ban, even though I did not like smoking in restaurants and such

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-13-13 7:43 AM

Concerned, you keep saying the right thing, about not infringing on the rights of others. But you would have no problem infringing on the rights of smokers, you're very one sided here. As if smokers don't have the same rights. And you still aren't thinking of the unintended consequences.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-13-13 7:39 AM

How are indoor and outdoor not different? Sit in your car, while running, in the garage for awhile. Do the same outside. Where do you think you'd last longer? Since we just keep throwin hypotheticals around let's say they ban most public smoking, you have designated zones. How long until smokers get blamed for the wind and lose their designated zones?

Also, do we tell the government what to do or is it the other way around? Sure feels like its mostly the other way around these days.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Mar-13-13 4:38 AM

WatchDog: "Kozy says: "WatchDog...you say, I'm the King and we will not do the Keystone XL pipeline."

Huh? I guess I must be in the twilight zone now? Sorry dear friend, I don't recall saying this on here. You want to help out on this if I am missing the point?...

Answer...WatchDog Mar-11-13 4:36 PM "How do you ban something that isn't against the law?"

I replied: " WatchDog...you say, I'm the King and we will not do the Keystone XL pipeline...

Or, I'm the Mayor and you will only drink so much pop...or, I'm the First Lady and you can only eat what I think is good for you...or, I'm the President and I'm shutting down WH visits. It happens because we let it happen. The only one who has demanded it stop was Rand Paul who filibustered to make certain the President didn't go forward with drones killing Americans on American soil."

I'm saying certain people are telling us what to do by just telling us and we are expected to do it whether it's a law o

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Mar-12-13 9:54 PM

Here is a little saying that pretty much says it all. "I see you smoke, well I chew, if you don't smoke on me I won't spit on you"

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Mar-12-13 9:52 PM

Let's put this another way. Let's say I like the sent of raid. I carry a can with me everywhere I go and I like to spray it. Should I be allowed to spray that raid any place and everyone else should just live with it? See how rediculous your argument is. The whole issue is not smoking it is that our freedoms can not infringe on other's well being. If I am around smoke, my eyes start to burn, I get a headache, start to sneeze. What makes more sense for the smoker to not light up or for me to have to leave? Like I said I am not against someone smoking if that is what they want to do, but they should do it in private not publicly where other people are going to be effected. Unfortunately there are smokers that don't care about others and the only way to stop them from lighting up in public is to make it illegal. But really have you ever heard of anyone getting busted for smoking? Usually if they are smoking in a non smoking area they are just asked by the person in charge to refrain, a

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Mar-12-13 7:58 PM

Watchdog you should know me well enough by now to know that I am for less government intrution in our lives. However our rights should not infringe on others rights when the effects or our actions harms the other person. You are probably right that smoking really does not shorten life but it can sure make them wish that it did. The suffering that can come about because of smoking is horrible. I am of the belief that our days are numbered by our creator and that we can't add any time to that amount of time. what would you say if a smoker came upon a bunch of non-smokers in an open field should the non smokers walk away? Or should the smoker either refrain or go elsewhere?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Mar-12-13 7:50 PM

Grant Does the state have the right to tell people how fast they can drive on public roads? Just because it is public property does that mean we can do as we please. Let me play devil advocate here. You siad " A ban on indoor smoking is completely different than outdoor, open air smoking." What's different it is still about the person being allowed to light up where and when he wants right. If we restrict smokers indoors it is ok, but not outside. I thought your argument was the government didn't have the right to tell someone where they could smoke.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-13 7:24 PM

A ban on indoor smoking is completely different than outdoor, open air smoking. And yes, you do have a right to say that someone can't smoke on your property. Is the property of state schools privately owned?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-12-13 6:21 PM

I agree with Grant. The question is simple...do you really trust Government? Seriously?

Do you realize how close we are to the US Constitution being changed from "We the people" to "We the Government"?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-12-13 6:12 PM

Kozy says: "WatchDog...you say, I'm the King and we will not do the Keystone XL pipeline."

Huh? I guess I must be in the twilight zone now? Sorry dear friend, I don't recall saying this on here. You want to help out on this if I am missing the point?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-12-13 5:56 PM

Do we have a government of the people by the people and for the people or not?

No, we don't. Majority of the people's will does not rule in America anymore. In fact, 90% of laws in this country are nothing more than pacification laws.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-12-13 5:52 PM

There has already been enough reports to indicate "second hand smoke" has been over exaggerated.

If smoking kills. Then why do smokers live as long as they do?

Why do warning labels on cigarettes declare...MAY cause cancer?

I think smoking has been entered into the fear factor scheme of things and it is generating profits by the millions.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-12-13 5:47 PM

"I don't understand the mindset that non- smokers should be the ones to have to go elsewhere to not smoke. Please tell me that is not your position on the subject."

No concerned that isn't my position. My position is simple. What happened to equal rights? Why is only the smoker's rights being violated? Most colleges have already have indoor bans on smoking. This is about banning smoking all together including the outside grounds.

This is my point. If you have a crowd of people standing around and somebody lights up. Why do you believe the smoker should leave just because the nonsmoker is standing there? Why doesn't the non smoker just leave? You see my point yet? We have to have fairness.

Do you believe a non drinker should have the right to walk into a bar and tell all drinkers to leave because they are there for a glass of water?

Do you believe because the guy down the street doesn't want to own a gun, that his entire neighborhood shouldn't own them eithe

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Mar-12-13 4:24 PM

You still didn't answer my property owners question. If I own property do I have the right to tell someone they can not smoke on my property? That is all the colleges are going to do.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Mar-12-13 4:23 PM

Grant I agree with you on those issues and I think government should be as small as possible, but this issue is not that. They are not telling people they can't smoke in certain places for their sake. It is for the people that don't want to be around it. Personally I like the smoking ban and I am an ex-smoker. Most smokers do not care if their smoke is bothering you or not or they would not fire up when others are around. Didn't we the people vote to ban smoking in public places in Ohio or was I just dream that? Do we have a government of the people by the people and for the people or not?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Mar-12-13 2:48 PM

This began a long time ago but is so out there now because of the debt. Do you remember in the 60s when farmers were paid to not have as many cows and to plant only certain crops...why didn't we say stop?

Now, certain folks in the EPA want to control plowing because there is too much dust. It's completely out of control.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-13 2:35 PM

I do not believe in anarchy, I believe in limited government. Our founders would be crying right now if they knew we were arguing over the government telling someone where they can and can not smoke. It all goes back to my letter from months ago that talked about changing the way we think. We've all been indoctrinated, left AND right, to believe that government will provide the solution to any problem. And the bigger they get, the more problems they can solve. Have they not created more problems than they've solved? You've been brainwashed through the school system, the media, social media, etc., to believe that government is the answer. Keynesian economics, big preemptive military, social controls labelled as social freedoms. The more the government does the less freedom you have. What issue is going to make you finally draw the line?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-13 2:30 PM

You're grossly missing the point. What I don't want is government telling me what I can and can't do right down to how many sheets of TP I can use in the restroom. How many ounces of pop I can have. How many bullets I can have in a magazine. How many miles I can drive in a day. How many lights I can have on at once. YOU GIVE AN INCH, THEY TAKE A MILE. Don't you think that government is big enough? Don't you think they make enough decisions? It's all hemorrhaging with debt and we expect them to take MORE control?! They clearly don't do anything well. This is just a lazy cop out anyways. Like I said way in the beginning, take action in a group that discourages smoking and warns of the danger. Ask politely and personally that someone put their smoke out and tell them why. Don't force it to happen with force. You will get consequences and set precedent that you don't intend.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Mar-12-13 2:20 PM

Grant are you advocating there be no laws. That eveyone just do as they please? Isn't that Anarchy? In this smoking case what do you do with the rights of the university or if it is a state college for the state to set rules for public property. Do you not believe that everyone has the right to control the behavior of anyone on their property? The car exhaust thing is like comparing aples to oranges. Everyone uses vehicles and contribute to the pollution even the Amish, although they don't own cars they ride in them to get where they want to go. Imagine what it would be like if we did not have laws governing the way people behaved. Do you really want to live in a world where people can do as they please wherever they please without regard to anyone else they may be harming??

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-13 1:35 PM

Like I said, people don't think of the unintended consequences and you're clearly one of them. As I and others have said here and in relation to many other topics, if you give the government (especially the federal government) an inch, they will take a mile. I don't have to argue that fact, it's blatantly obvious. If you can't see that, then there is no point in arguing. It's like me wasting time arguing over the color of a wall with a blind man.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-13 1:31 PM

Alright...again...should people not be able to drive because of the exhaust their cars make? Should they not be aloud to breathe because they give off CO2? Should factories not be able to produce your power because they give off toxic fumes? Should truck drivers not be able to deliver goods to market because their diesel exhaust might impact the customers in the parking lot? Should the federal government tuck you in at night? Should they brush your teeth for you in the morning? Help you tie your shoes? Maybe they can just put in moving sidewalks everywhere so you don't even have to walk, because if you walk you're certainly exhaling more C02. Lets ban air travel, planes burn tons of fuel. WE HAVE TO BAN PUBLIC SNEEZING BECAUSE IT'S THE LEADING CAUSE OF THE FLU AND OBAMACARE CAN'T HANDLE ANY MORE FLU RELATED ILLNESSES.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Mar-12-13 12:29 PM

As with the size of government as established under the Constitution...very small and very few regulations.

Give us a break...give Washington a quarter inch and the take a thousand miles.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Mar-12-13 11:00 AM

Sorry, minimizing!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 71 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web