As a social libertarian, I have to say...
- Thread starter Bravo
- Start date
?
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
It was a tough choice between the last two.
Up front, understand, I don't smoke. And, I'm not an "ex-smoker".
I don't have a desire to smoke, or breathe your smoke either. That being said, I don't feel any right to tell you you can't smoke.
Illinois is about to become the 19th(?) state to pass a no smoking in public places law. Their's actually includes all private clubs as well. Amazingly, casinos are apparently exempt. (wtf?)
What's next? No gum in public? (Keep it off the bottoms of tables and park benches.) I figure that if a business owner has so much non smoking business, they will go non-smoking on their own.
And, if I don't want to be around smokers, I don't have to visit the places where they are.
Either scenario comes from the same place: personal responsibility.
The increasing lack there of seems to be resulting in increasing losses of personal rights. Funny how that works.
Up front, understand, I don't smoke. And, I'm not an "ex-smoker".
I don't have a desire to smoke, or breathe your smoke either. That being said, I don't feel any right to tell you you can't smoke.
Illinois is about to become the 19th(?) state to pass a no smoking in public places law. Their's actually includes all private clubs as well. Amazingly, casinos are apparently exempt. (wtf?)
What's next? No gum in public? (Keep it off the bottoms of tables and park benches.) I figure that if a business owner has so much non smoking business, they will go non-smoking on their own.
And, if I don't want to be around smokers, I don't have to visit the places where they are.
Either scenario comes from the same place: personal responsibility.
The increasing lack there of seems to be resulting in increasing losses of personal rights. Funny how that works.
Give the smokers their own buildings, I say. Their houses, their cars, and "Smoking-Allowed" bars // bowling alleys // pool halls // whatevers would all be fair game. Then smokers have places where they can go and enjoy themselves, hang loose, and light up. And I would have the option of not breathing smoke when I go out.
I grew up around the smell of tobacco and it doesn't bother me, though it does bother other people. I think it adds a certain charm to places.
But very recently, I've found that clouds of cigarette smoke really, really bother me. My life has just been that much easier since my junior college passed a non-smoking regulation, basically kicking the smokers and ashtrays some 15 yards away from all the doors.
I grew up around the smell of tobacco and it doesn't bother me, though it does bother other people. I think it adds a certain charm to places.
But very recently, I've found that clouds of cigarette smoke really, really bother me. My life has just been that much easier since my junior college passed a non-smoking regulation, basically kicking the smokers and ashtrays some 15 yards away from all the doors.
Speaking as a "recovering smoker" I do NOT like being around cigarette smoke or smokers (my brother, his wife, his ex-wife and all their sons smoke, and their grandkids will surely smoke too...).
But if someone wants to run a business where smoking is allowed, whether it's a bar, a restaurant or what, I think the only government requirement should be a clearly readable on every entrance that says "Smoking Allowed" so I can decide not to go in. Requiring a "Smoking Allowed" sign does indeed go against libertarian values, but I feel okay in bending my values so that those who don't want to smell cigarette smoke get a warning before they step into such an establishment.
But if someone wants to run a business where smoking is allowed, whether it's a bar, a restaurant or what, I think the only government requirement should be a clearly readable on every entrance that says "Smoking Allowed" so I can decide not to go in. Requiring a "Smoking Allowed" sign does indeed go against libertarian values, but I feel okay in bending my values so that those who don't want to smell cigarette smoke get a warning before they step into such an establishment.
TN finally passed the law (after years of attempts and 80% of the residents wanting it), even though it's traditionally been a tobacco state.
This is an issue that gets me pretty riled up...
I love it. From the standpoint of my health, I like being able to breathe air in public places that is free from avoidable carcinogens. I don't appreciate being forced to have my chances of lung cancer and other repiratory ailments dramatically increase, not to mention have my clothes and hair stink, when I go out simply because someone near me indulges in an incredibly unhealthy habit which detrimentally affects everyone around him/her.
The argument of "well, non-smokers can just not go to those places," is just plain stupid because when pretty much every public restaurant allows smoking, it's impossible to avoid cigarette smoke. What should non-smokers do, never go out and enjoy a nice meal? Either healthy people subject themselves to someone else's dangerous habit and have their health threatened or stay locked up at home and never go out? That's ridiculous.
I also think it protects babies and small children from idiot smoker parents who take their children out in public, sit in the smoking section, and proceed to chain smoke in front of their kids, making the kids breathe in that cancer. That's child abuse, imo, and those parents should be prosecuted. Hell, I've even seen morons bring babies into the smoking section of restaurants and puff away. Even seen some pregnant women who are stupid enough to smoke (they obviously love cigarettes more than their own unborn child). Those people don't deserve to have kids.
Also, from the standpoint of running a restaurant, the ban's been a lot better for business.
So, I'm all for those bans in public places. My conscience is totally clear. If a person wants to get lung cancer, great. They can do so either in the privacy of their own home or at designated places with other cancer lovers. But, it's thoughtlessly inconsiderate and selfish, if not inhumane, to unwillingly subject everyone around them to a similar fate.
This law isn't to protect non-smokers from the polite, considerate, intelligent (well...questionably so, since they smoke
) smokers who make sure that they're not infringing the rights of nonsmokers. It's to protect us (and their kids) from the inconsiderate morons who couldn't care less who is negatively affected by their behavior.
This is an issue that gets me pretty riled up...
I love it. From the standpoint of my health, I like being able to breathe air in public places that is free from avoidable carcinogens. I don't appreciate being forced to have my chances of lung cancer and other repiratory ailments dramatically increase, not to mention have my clothes and hair stink, when I go out simply because someone near me indulges in an incredibly unhealthy habit which detrimentally affects everyone around him/her.
The argument of "well, non-smokers can just not go to those places," is just plain stupid because when pretty much every public restaurant allows smoking, it's impossible to avoid cigarette smoke. What should non-smokers do, never go out and enjoy a nice meal? Either healthy people subject themselves to someone else's dangerous habit and have their health threatened or stay locked up at home and never go out? That's ridiculous.
I also think it protects babies and small children from idiot smoker parents who take their children out in public, sit in the smoking section, and proceed to chain smoke in front of their kids, making the kids breathe in that cancer. That's child abuse, imo, and those parents should be prosecuted. Hell, I've even seen morons bring babies into the smoking section of restaurants and puff away. Even seen some pregnant women who are stupid enough to smoke (they obviously love cigarettes more than their own unborn child). Those people don't deserve to have kids.
Also, from the standpoint of running a restaurant, the ban's been a lot better for business.
So, I'm all for those bans in public places. My conscience is totally clear. If a person wants to get lung cancer, great. They can do so either in the privacy of their own home or at designated places with other cancer lovers. But, it's thoughtlessly inconsiderate and selfish, if not inhumane, to unwillingly subject everyone around them to a similar fate.
This law isn't to protect non-smokers from the polite, considerate, intelligent (well...questionably so, since they smoke
) smokers who make sure that they're not infringing the rights of nonsmokers. It's to protect us (and their kids) from the inconsiderate morons who couldn't care less who is negatively affected by their behavior.
Last edited:
I quit smoking over 30 years ago, and I hate it, but I will defend the rights of smokers, just as I will defend the rights of those who choose to eat fats, get a tattoo, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Our right to be stupid must trump government's desire to take care of us, or we don't have freedom. It's one thing for government to inform, but quite another to intrude.
If someone lights up around me, I either move, or ask them to put it out if I can't move. If restaurant owners wish to allow smokers, that's okay with me. For every one of those businesses, I can find a dozen smoke-free places to eat. I'm a big boy, and don't need some bureaucrat making choices for me. I'm also a responsible parent and grandparent, and intelligent enough to not expose children to dangerous situations.
If you are unwilling to stand up for smokers, don't expect help when your likes are threatened.
If someone lights up around me, I either move, or ask them to put it out if I can't move. If restaurant owners wish to allow smokers, that's okay with me. For every one of those businesses, I can find a dozen smoke-free places to eat. I'm a big boy, and don't need some bureaucrat making choices for me. I'm also a responsible parent and grandparent, and intelligent enough to not expose children to dangerous situations.
If you are unwilling to stand up for smokers, don't expect help when your likes are threatened.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
If the product is that harmful, someone in government needs to grow some balls and ban the substance already!
Why pussyfoot around by selective banning of the act?
Seems hypocritical to me.
Why pussyfoot around by selective banning of the act?
Seems hypocritical to me.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 4,672
- Reaction score
- 3,566
- Location
- Spurs Country
- Website
- www.jayyoungweb.com
I'm an ex-smoker (okay, occasional smoker) and I don't care that I can't smoke in a restaurant. I like to smoke in bars when I drink but if I can't, then I can't. However, I don't like the government telling me where I can and can't smoke. Let the owner of the building decide that and non-smokers can decide if they want to go there or not.
Maybe it's just my dislike for the government in general. I hate that they worry about stuff like smoking laws, forcing me to buy an HD tv, and other such stupid stuff. Don't they have better things to do...like fixing the fucking economy?
Maybe it's just my dislike for the government in general. I hate that they worry about stuff like smoking laws, forcing me to buy an HD tv, and other such stupid stuff. Don't they have better things to do...like fixing the fucking economy?
RUN FOR OFFICE, SPORK.
Seriously. That was a classic post. When I get off the train each morning, all the smokers dying to get their fix start puffing away. I like holding my breath and then loudly exhaling near/into their faces as I walk by them. No one has called me on it yet, but I remain hopeful that one of them says something.
Seriously. That was a classic post. When I get off the train each morning, all the smokers dying to get their fix start puffing away. I like holding my breath and then loudly exhaling near/into their faces as I walk by them. No one has called me on it yet, but I remain hopeful that one of them says something.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
Yes. Restaurant food is bad for you anyway. Stay at home. You'll be healthier all around. Now move over, you're in the way of my ashtray.
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 22,986
- Reaction score
- 1,299
- Location
- Durham, NC
- Website
- www.michaeledits.com
I'm about as conflicted as it gets. I quit smoking 5 years ago. In China, if you can believe it. They eat with chopsticks in one hand and a cigarette in the other. I think it'd be okay to set a smoker on fire. Just for the deterrent value.
I also just finished editing 74 pages about the new Thai constitution. I'd be an expert if I could remember any of it. 12 hours in one day, with a five-hour bike marathon in between, so I'm burned out, but damn that'll pay the rent for the month, with some left over for cigarettes. No, wait, I don't smoke. Cat tuna, then. Always a winner.
(P.S. Spork? Nah. I'd vote for Susie.)
I also just finished editing 74 pages about the new Thai constitution. I'd be an expert if I could remember any of it. 12 hours in one day, with a five-hour bike marathon in between, so I'm burned out, but damn that'll pay the rent for the month, with some left over for cigarettes. No, wait, I don't smoke. Cat tuna, then. Always a winner.
(P.S. Spork? Nah. I'd vote for Susie.)
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
I think there's a vast difference between a substance like alcohol that shouldn't be used in certain situations but also has proven health benefits when used in moderation compared to a substance that has absolutely no redeeming benefits and in fact has been proven to be 100% harmful.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,730
- Reaction score
- 8,938
- Location
- still in the dungeon
- Website
- www.melaniehoo.com
I agree with the smoking bans. I recognize it infringes on rights, in the sense that you can't do everything you want, in every place imaginable. But what if you equate it to another activity that many people enjoy, but you're not allowed to do in public. Something no one complains about but accepts as normal, and no one bats an eye if people are arrested for doing it in public? The activity? Sex.
As a non smoker who's lived with the smoking ban for the past couple of years, I now want my govt to go even further.
I want obese people banned from eating too much. Obesity is now becoming the biggest burden on our public health service, and as a non obese taxpayer I could one day be denied vital health care due to the mounting pressures on these services.
I also want school runs banned. I'm sick to the teeth of turning up at school with my kids and feeling like I'm in the middle of a stock car rally, wading through a fug of exhaust fumes as 4x4's disgorge a solitary child.
Nah, I'm joking. I don't really want these things.
But they're coming.
I want obese people banned from eating too much. Obesity is now becoming the biggest burden on our public health service, and as a non obese taxpayer I could one day be denied vital health care due to the mounting pressures on these services.
I also want school runs banned. I'm sick to the teeth of turning up at school with my kids and feeling like I'm in the middle of a stock car rally, wading through a fug of exhaust fumes as 4x4's disgorge a solitary child.
Nah, I'm joking. I don't really want these things.
But they're coming.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
It comes down to choices and what role we want our government playing?
Do we want an all powerful nanny looking out for our best interests despite what we want? "We know what's better for you than you do!"
Well, in some cases yes, others no.
Obesity. Overeating is our problem and our choice. However, dangerous foods, that's the FDA's problem. Cyclamates. Cause cancer. Banned. Transfats. Harmful. Gradually being banned state by state.
Asbestos. Harmful. Banned.
Lead. Harmful. Banned from gas, paint, etc.
Tobacco. Deadly. Kills us. Selectively forcing certain establishments to not allow it on the premises while still making it widely available to anyone to purchase.
Anyone see a disparity here?
Do we want an all powerful nanny looking out for our best interests despite what we want? "We know what's better for you than you do!"
Well, in some cases yes, others no.
Obesity. Overeating is our problem and our choice. However, dangerous foods, that's the FDA's problem. Cyclamates. Cause cancer. Banned. Transfats. Harmful. Gradually being banned state by state.
Asbestos. Harmful. Banned.
Lead. Harmful. Banned from gas, paint, etc.
Tobacco. Deadly. Kills us. Selectively forcing certain establishments to not allow it on the premises while still making it widely available to anyone to purchase.
Anyone see a disparity here?
Of course smoking in public places should be banned. My right to breathe clean air is greater than your self-inflicted addiction masquerading as a 'right' to smoke.
I need oxygen to live. You don't need nicotine.
I need oxygen to live. You don't need nicotine.
The trouble with that is, if even one person smokes in a room, EVERY non-smoker can smell it and is forced to breathe it in. Why should a non-smoker's social life be curtailed just because a smoker refuses to control their habit?
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
As much as I hate to crash this thread, I feel obligated to.
Last year, on December 6th, Ohio's smoking ban went into effect. Also on December 6th, at about 8 p.m., the state Attorney General announced that there would initially be no penalties involved in the smoking ban. Why? Because they had no way to enforce it. Bars all over Ohio immediately put their ashtrays back out. Some didn't. I worked in one that remained in compliance of the law; I took a 60% income hit right before Christmas.
They began 'enforcing' the law in May of this year. The state set up a phone line and website where people could anonymously leave complaints about places in non-compliance. Would these charges be investigated? Nah. An anonymous complaint was enough to get an establishment cited. On the first day of the law's enforcement, the bar I worked in was cited despite being the only bar in this town that had complied. The complaint read as follows:
Now that the Ohio smoking 'ban' has been in effect for a year, half the bars in this town still have ashtrays out. The reason? They don't get cited. I think one bar has two citations, and they have a collection jar out to collect the money to pay the fines.
So here's my take on smoking bans. First off, tobacco is a legal product. The government makes huge revenue from the sale of tobacco--they tax the hell out of it. Smoking will never be illegal for that reason alone--well that and the failure of a little thing called Prohibition. If such is the case, then how can you prevent adults (who pay those taxes) to partake of a completely legal substance? Secondly, did anyone consider the small business owners (and their employees) when these laws were constructed? Apparently not; the loss of business, profit, and income as a result of these bans is not only significant, it's critical. Even now, a year later, my income is impacted severely as a result of the smoking ban. Third, what would really be the problem with having establishments that permit smoking? Yeah, yeah I know--non-smokers shouldn't have to breathe second-hand smoke. I get that; I don't have a problem with it. I actually think that non-smoking restaurants are great; I don't want to smell smoke while I eat. But bars? Bowling alleys? Private clubs? What's the big deal there?
It occurs to me that all of this energy spent upon enforcing a ban against a completely legal substance could be utilized elsewhere and have a greater effect upon society. Instead of clogging up the court system with state prosecutions of offenders (and yes, in Ohio when you get ticketed for smoking it's just like a traffic ticket) couldn't the government be investigating drug dealers? pedophiles? how about plain old burglars?
*shrug* Or how about using the money the law sucks up for education and/or rehabilitation for smokers? Oh no, wait--that's too positive. It's much easier to punish an adult for using a completely legal substance in a public place than it is to try and help them break the habit.
Last year, on December 6th, Ohio's smoking ban went into effect. Also on December 6th, at about 8 p.m., the state Attorney General announced that there would initially be no penalties involved in the smoking ban. Why? Because they had no way to enforce it. Bars all over Ohio immediately put their ashtrays back out. Some didn't. I worked in one that remained in compliance of the law; I took a 60% income hit right before Christmas.
They began 'enforcing' the law in May of this year. The state set up a phone line and website where people could anonymously leave complaints about places in non-compliance. Would these charges be investigated? Nah. An anonymous complaint was enough to get an establishment cited. On the first day of the law's enforcement, the bar I worked in was cited despite being the only bar in this town that had complied. The complaint read as follows:
Now that the Ohio smoking 'ban' has been in effect for a year, half the bars in this town still have ashtrays out. The reason? They don't get cited. I think one bar has two citations, and they have a collection jar out to collect the money to pay the fines.
So here's my take on smoking bans. First off, tobacco is a legal product. The government makes huge revenue from the sale of tobacco--they tax the hell out of it. Smoking will never be illegal for that reason alone--well that and the failure of a little thing called Prohibition. If such is the case, then how can you prevent adults (who pay those taxes) to partake of a completely legal substance? Secondly, did anyone consider the small business owners (and their employees) when these laws were constructed? Apparently not; the loss of business, profit, and income as a result of these bans is not only significant, it's critical. Even now, a year later, my income is impacted severely as a result of the smoking ban. Third, what would really be the problem with having establishments that permit smoking? Yeah, yeah I know--non-smokers shouldn't have to breathe second-hand smoke. I get that; I don't have a problem with it. I actually think that non-smoking restaurants are great; I don't want to smell smoke while I eat. But bars? Bowling alleys? Private clubs? What's the big deal there?
It occurs to me that all of this energy spent upon enforcing a ban against a completely legal substance could be utilized elsewhere and have a greater effect upon society. Instead of clogging up the court system with state prosecutions of offenders (and yes, in Ohio when you get ticketed for smoking it's just like a traffic ticket) couldn't the government be investigating drug dealers? pedophiles? how about plain old burglars?
*shrug* Or how about using the money the law sucks up for education and/or rehabilitation for smokers? Oh no, wait--that's too positive. It's much easier to punish an adult for using a completely legal substance in a public place than it is to try and help them break the habit.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
Okay, for argument's sake, when did your rights become greater than mine? Let's say my right to drive in safety is greater than your need to talk on the phone. Or, my right to a vegetarian lifestyle is greater than your right to consume trans fats? Or, how about this: my right to express my opinion is greater than your right to express yours? If you don't want to see drunks, don't go to a bar. If you don't want to see obese people, don't go to McDonald's. If you don't want to smell smoke, patronize non-smoking establishments. *shrug* makes more sense to me than some blanket comment about how your rights supersede those of your peers.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
This is why banning of smoking in public is so hypocritical.
It's a deadly product and yet the government is making a ton of money off of it in taxes!
And Prohibition failed because you can make alcohol in your home. You can make it nearly anywhere with all sorts of homemade equipment.
Tobacco cannot be made at home unless you happen to have tobacco plants and I don't think you can get those seeds in the lawn and garden supply.
There might be a black market from overseas, but nowhere to the extent of prohibition. Why? Because the majority of smokers all feel guilty anyway and if it was banned they'd all accept it and quit.