Difference between revisions of "Talk:Smoking Bans"
(Created page with "Ecosmart Eco eleven Electric Tankless Water Heater Insuranceuniversity.co Are you uninterested in looking at the eyesore that is your house's sizzling water heater? The unit...") |
(The priorities involved and prevailing over smoking bans.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Smoking bans are contradictory to legal requirements accepted and expected of everyone. How can they expect tobacco to be banned inside if it is legitimately sold chosen from illegal drugs in classical times from history? If so smoking is only permitted outside in the open whether what is smoked is tobacco or not and it is like permitting illegal drugs to be only smoked outside when they compensate so. This is what arbitrariness effectively leads to. | |
| − | + | Tobacco smoke is more carcinogenic than that of illegal drugs but this was unknown during previous history and that resulted in permitting tobacco and abandoning euphoric smoked substances. Smoking bans are making the assumption that whoever is smoking should be doing so outside even if they are smoking illegitimate substances and instruct them to do so only outside, and this is simply unserious, immature and ridiculous. | |
| − | + | Smokers must be mature to make responsible adult decisions and in such context are not expected to be manipulated in exchange for the responsibility they carry. How can legislators and related officials expect to be taken seriously if they superficially apply this form of fascism? | |
| − | + | These are two main requirements made of the legislation concerning smoking which are its pure tobacco consistency and its mature and adult use, and what the smoking ban is all about as a chapter of applicable law. Politicians demonstrating different principles are missing the point in their duties since what they interpret as a smoking ban is unconstitutional, or contra-constitutional if you prefer in American English. | |
| − | + | Of course smoking bans are unconstitutional from when you must have experienced being presented with the imposed law instead of the constitution of your country. There is a difference between legislation and law. Legislation is one act or a group of laws that apply. The law is a more general term. The smoking ban is an item of legislation, not the law itself as some people would relentlessly advocate for. Having stated so, this item of legislation is contra-constitutional in most countries from where it was introduced and voted up for by representatives of those it affects including themselves on the identical condition. | |
| − | + | In the United Kingdom, the Lords will not be instructed from the electorate to go out with their Havana cigars each of which may cost £250 and £900 for a box of 12 to consume them because of their voting rights and ability to do so, given that they are exclusively addressed by the constitution of 1215 and their nobility titles. This is implicitly unconstitutional nevertheless was presented to the public instead of the constitution as a law expecting it to be followed because of the abuse of the power resulting in imposing it. | |
| + | |||
| + | Smoking bans violate the right to free motion and that of choice of the course of action and its selection. They also disregard the asylum of the private residence along writing them up since this is ensuring that you can smoke in your own home and have your children follow the same in theirs, and smoke according to your raising them wherever it is applied to practice to do so without given a revised instruction from the law or state. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Smoking bans are also called false flags in political sciences, because the decision that was made by the politician was guided by the W.H.O., the pharmaceutical industry and so-called charities of public abuse and manipulation combatting people instead of smoking alone and does not express their verdict instead of the preoccupied verdict of the third parties aforementioned. In political sciences, this is called raising a false flag from an organisation, group or country with an externally taken decision to implement as their own. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We should see and admit that there are always two sides to a story, involving compromise and discussion, that pros and cons generate for' s and against' s, that you cannot have the pie or the cake and eat it because problems are not extracted rightfully from their causes but are solved using creative means for finding their solutions, and that the means do not justify the ends when considering how to respond and react to counter-smoking legislation opposing comprehensive smoking rights which are ideal in a society as a measurement of its outlook to liberty and freedoms. | ||
Revision as of 01:36, 26 December 2021
Smoking bans are contradictory to legal requirements accepted and expected of everyone. How can they expect tobacco to be banned inside if it is legitimately sold chosen from illegal drugs in classical times from history? If so smoking is only permitted outside in the open whether what is smoked is tobacco or not and it is like permitting illegal drugs to be only smoked outside when they compensate so. This is what arbitrariness effectively leads to.
Tobacco smoke is more carcinogenic than that of illegal drugs but this was unknown during previous history and that resulted in permitting tobacco and abandoning euphoric smoked substances. Smoking bans are making the assumption that whoever is smoking should be doing so outside even if they are smoking illegitimate substances and instruct them to do so only outside, and this is simply unserious, immature and ridiculous.
Smokers must be mature to make responsible adult decisions and in such context are not expected to be manipulated in exchange for the responsibility they carry. How can legislators and related officials expect to be taken seriously if they superficially apply this form of fascism?
These are two main requirements made of the legislation concerning smoking which are its pure tobacco consistency and its mature and adult use, and what the smoking ban is all about as a chapter of applicable law. Politicians demonstrating different principles are missing the point in their duties since what they interpret as a smoking ban is unconstitutional, or contra-constitutional if you prefer in American English.
Of course smoking bans are unconstitutional from when you must have experienced being presented with the imposed law instead of the constitution of your country. There is a difference between legislation and law. Legislation is one act or a group of laws that apply. The law is a more general term. The smoking ban is an item of legislation, not the law itself as some people would relentlessly advocate for. Having stated so, this item of legislation is contra-constitutional in most countries from where it was introduced and voted up for by representatives of those it affects including themselves on the identical condition.
In the United Kingdom, the Lords will not be instructed from the electorate to go out with their Havana cigars each of which may cost £250 and £900 for a box of 12 to consume them because of their voting rights and ability to do so, given that they are exclusively addressed by the constitution of 1215 and their nobility titles. This is implicitly unconstitutional nevertheless was presented to the public instead of the constitution as a law expecting it to be followed because of the abuse of the power resulting in imposing it.
Smoking bans violate the right to free motion and that of choice of the course of action and its selection. They also disregard the asylum of the private residence along writing them up since this is ensuring that you can smoke in your own home and have your children follow the same in theirs, and smoke according to your raising them wherever it is applied to practice to do so without given a revised instruction from the law or state.
Smoking bans are also called false flags in political sciences, because the decision that was made by the politician was guided by the W.H.O., the pharmaceutical industry and so-called charities of public abuse and manipulation combatting people instead of smoking alone and does not express their verdict instead of the preoccupied verdict of the third parties aforementioned. In political sciences, this is called raising a false flag from an organisation, group or country with an externally taken decision to implement as their own.
We should see and admit that there are always two sides to a story, involving compromise and discussion, that pros and cons generate for' s and against' s, that you cannot have the pie or the cake and eat it because problems are not extracted rightfully from their causes but are solved using creative means for finding their solutions, and that the means do not justify the ends when considering how to respond and react to counter-smoking legislation opposing comprehensive smoking rights which are ideal in a society as a measurement of its outlook to liberty and freedoms.
