flstf

It is a lot harder to move to another city, state or country than it is to just choose which bar to go to for a beer. I imagine many non-smokers would choose to go to bars where smoking is not permitted and visa versa. The market would probably shake out with a lot more non-smoking places if people were allowed to choose.

I live out in the country and about once a month I stop in to a local village tavern for a beer or two. This is a small place with about 12 stools and is usually frequented by a few old retired WWII and Vietnam vets. The times I have been there, the owner bartender and the guys were all smoking. I can't imagine why we would want to pass a law making them all go outside.

shakran

Uh, yeahhhhh. . . you try that in a restaurant. Option 3 is all you'll get.


OUT. . .side. . .

Yeah, you have a point there. Oh wait, you drove to that restaurant didn't you. Good, go smoke in your car. No one will complain there! Look I'm sorry that you choose to fill your lungs with cancer causing smoke and tar, but that's YOUR choice. Sometimes you have to do things you choose to do in restricted areas. I can't legally have sex with my wife in the restaurant, or on the sidewalk outside the restaurant, even though sex with my wife is something I enjoy. Same thing for smoking, except that sex with my wife does not create a public health hazard for you.


Your car or your house. If you can't deal with that, may I suggest chewing tobacco?

No, I'm pointing out that market forces do not always result in the best decisions. If the market forces argument had been used during the civil rights movement we'd still have whites-only fountains. Sometimes in the interest of the public good you have to go against the market. (and really every restaurant/bar smoking ban I've EVER heard of has resulted in INCREASED business, so this is helpful to the market anyway)



Yes, you absolutely can. I'm not allowed to run a car wash that uses carbon tetrachloride in the soap because carbon tet is a carcinogen. I'm not allowed to run a barber shop where I reuse the same dirty razor all day long. Why should I be allowed to expose my customers to cigarette smoke?

I appreciate that they tried to preserve the health of their customers, but unless they make the smoking section vending machine only, they cannot preserve the health of their staff no matter how elaborate they get.

That's right. The government passes laws. If you don't like the laws, elect people who will pass laws you do like. But since smokers are now in the minority, I doubt that will happen. this is a REPUBLIC, not a dictatorship, which means the few do not get to order the many around.

Good point. I fucking pay taxes on my car, so why the hell should I have to maintain its emissions equipment? Why should i have to obey the speed limits? I pay TAXES on it!

Paying taxes does not give you carte blanche to do what you want. Otherwise I could run a whorehouse out of my home because I pay property taxes.


We don't need the damn taxes. If the government would stop subsidizing the tobacco farmers then losing the taxes would probably be fairly close to revenue neutral.

DaElf

No one is forcing non smokers to go into these bars and restaurants. It's your choice to go into them if you don't like the smoke then stay out. I don't go into gay bars because of what's going on in them. Who am I to complain about what gay people do in a gay bar?

It takes 10s of thousands of cigarettes to signifcantly harm your health (in an adult). Please stop whining about having to breathe in two seconds of smoke at some random place that you chose to go to. Breathing in emmisions from vehicles will kill you too if you suck on the exuast pipe.Those emmisions are in the air all around you. They are smogging up the air every where. When you are at the mall you are breathing in emmisions from cars from all over. It is very unhealthy for you. I don't see you whiney hypocondriacs aren't complaining about that.

I'm a non smoker but not an anti smoker (yay for labels.) Please stop WHINING like little children about smoking. Let's strip people of their rights because you don't like that they practice their formerly free right of personal choice (smoking) where you choose to be. GOOD PLAN

__________________
I'm sitting at my desk right now waiting for you to reply to the above message.

shakran

No one is forcing smokers to go into these bars and restaurants instead of staying outside to finish their cigarette first.

This has already been addressed several times in this thread. Read it very carefully. Employees of the smoking establishments do not have a choice. They are being harmed.

Fine. But if the gays start going into every other establishment and lighting up their cigarettes, I'll be the first in line to complain. About the smoking.



Well there's an outlandish claim that's just BEGGING for a citation of source. hint: If it's from a tobacco industry-funded paper, it's bullshit.

Please stop whining about having to go 20 whole minutes without lighting up.

You're right. That's why I don't suck on the exhaust pipe, and it's why anyone who tries to make me suck on the exhaust pipe should be arrested. By the same token, I don't want to be sucking on your cigarette.


well this is a SMOKING thread, not a vehicle emissions thread. We're not complaining about the number of rapes nationwide or global warming or STD's either. See, we're trying to stay on topic here.

BTW us "whiny hypochondriacs" (that's how you spell those two words BTW) are not whiny, nor are we hypochondriacs. I strongly suspect you don't know what hypochondriac means.

We're not whining. Please stop trolling with your idiotic accusations. We're registering a legitimate complaint. If you or someone else wants to smoke, that's fine, as long as they don't do it around those of us who don't want to smoke.

Please tell me where in the constitution it says you have a right to smoke. Tell me where in the constitution it says you have the right to harm my health so you can get a nic fix.


There is not nor was there ever a "right of personal choice." If there were, suicide would not be illegal.

And even the Personal Choice party, which claims that there should be a right to personal choice, qualifies it with "as long as it doesn't hurt other people" so even under their umbrella smoking around nonsmokers would be out.

filtherton

I did mention that in my city, preban, there were no bars that were smoke free.

People have been allowed to choose for a long time. Like i said, no smoke free bars that i was aware of in a city with nearly 400,000 people. How long have people been smoking and drinking in bars? How long do you want to wait to see if the market will shake out more nonsmoking places?

I'm sorry, the market had its say, and it amounted to a clear rejection of smoke-free drinking establishments.

The reasons why these laws are passed have been done to death in this thread. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the bans, you need only to scroll up the page.

One nice thing about smoking bans is that they essentially become a nonissue if no one around cares about enforcing it or complaining to whatever regulatory agency oversees its enforcement.

DaElf

[QUOTE=shakran]No one is forcing smokers to go into these bars and restaurants instead of staying outside to finish their cigarette first.

The bar it self is a smoking establishment. You don't have to go there. It has nothing to do with the smokers inside.



They don't have to work there. Working there is a choice. Just like you don't have to work at a coal mine and get black lung.


If you complained that a smoker smoked where the owner of the property said he can not then I would have no problem with complaint. Anyway what I said was a like comparision.





I don't have a source.It's speaking from personal experience. Next time you walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke then hack up blood. Take a picture and let us all know I'm wrong.



I don't smoke so I don't/can't whine about it.



Ah but you are forced to breathe the exaust just as you are forced to breathe second hand smoke and once again I don't smoke.




Once again a like comparision. Your not being forced in the same way to get raped or get STD's as you are being forced with emissions. You are being forced to breathe those emmisions just are you are forced to breathe smoke or deal with global warming. People should stop driving cars if we're going to be so health concious. Anti smokers are focusing on a small and feeble issue. Hey and I'll remember that for grammar class thanks bud.



No you are whining. Definition of whining is a feeble, peevish complaint. You already admitted you were complaining and I see your complaining as peevish and like I said before feeble. So you can stop trolling with your idiotic accusaions.

It's fine if you don't smoke as long as you don't go around smokers you should be fine.



Where in the constitution does it say you have a right not to breathe second hand smoke.




I don't think smokers should be able to smoke in non smoking places. Non smokers should not tell smokers in smoking places what to do.

__________________
I'm sitting at my desk right now waiting for you to reply to the above message.

pan6467

2 things and then I am done with this thread because I have spoken my piece:

1) As much as non-smokers cry about the smoker, I believe I pointed out compromise to which the non smoker still bitched and moaned..... society is based on compromises, you lose compromise you lose freedoms.

Whic takes me to #2...... it amazes me how some on here in other threads talk about how big and powerful government is and how we are losing rights, yet they are begging and demanding rights be taken away. They offer no compromise, they want things their way and fuck everyone who doesn't agree..... like I said, it's the same with censorship, gun control, religion etc.

Some lady in Michigan starts writing letters saying Howard Stern is vile and they fine him off the free airwaves..... even though she never heard him.

A mother demands that Tom Sawyer and other books be banned from the school library because she doesn't want her son subjected to it.... even though he doesn't even know what section of the library the book is in.

Loss of freedoms is just that loss of freedoms..... it's wrong you know it is wrong and you will cry about it when they come and take a freedom away from you....

Freedom is compromise.... again, compromise was offered, separate rooms, ventilations and yet, people demand for all or nothing..... fuck everyone else, we know better, we are the majority..... we know what's best..... but what happens when the smoking issue is dead and buried and these people filled with hate and control and demands for what's best for the people decide to come after something you enjoy, do, a way you live your life and endlessly attack you, to the point where no one dares speak out?

Trust me the day will come.

All the fucking problems in this country and people worry more about smoking than anything else........ no wonder our country is falling apart.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Xera

I use the word you a lot in this post. I don't mean a specific person; I am using it more as, "everyone that is not me."

Again I want to know why the police are allowed to search people for possession of cigarettes. Why in the hell is that ok? Why are there restrictions saying that I can not smoke in my CAR in the parking lot of a business.

I want to reiterate here, I do not believe that my smoking gives me the right to force non smokers to breathe my cancer causing second hand smoke. I just don't believe that when there are already laws in place to protect you from that second hand smoke in public places, what I do IN MY OWN CAR is any of your damn business. I can promise you this, if it's happening in redneck acres (as I affectionately refer to my home town); it’s coming to yours soon.

I have one truly horrible allergy. It makes me very sick to be around people wearing cologne or perfume. Even slightly scented deodorants can get me on a bad day. These scents are triggers for my migraines. They are very horrible. If you have never had migraines before you cannot possibly understand. I have done some looking into this. There is NOTHING that can be done for a perfume allergy of this sort. There is some limited help for skin allergies but not for inhaled allergies. And I am not alone here . There is no need for people to wear perfume. NONE. No one is even so much as addicted to it. They just chose to go around smelling like lemons and making me and others like me sick. 72% of asthmatics list perfumes as a trigger .

So what are you going to do when we decide that we're sick of you making us sick with your smelly, stinking perfumes? There is a serious health problem associated with you getting all smelly. I don't know that you like to wear perfumes, but many many people do. How will you feel when its you we decide has to shower and remove your stinking smells before you come into public places because it makes so many people sick?

You're right, smoking is not a right. There is no constitutional guarantee of the right to smoke. Nor is there a guarantee of the right to drive a car, get a library membership, or wear make-up. We just get to do these things because we live in a "free" society, where, for the most part, we get to make our own minds about whether or not to participate in legal activities.

You think that no one’s rights are being denied here. You think that there is a little more needless hysteria because of what is being said by those of us that are not as supportive of anti smoking laws as you are. You think you are safe from these laws because you don't smoke. When you give away another persons right to choose what he or she will do, you open the door for your rights to choose what legal activities you will participate in to be whittled away.

There is no government conspiracy to take away or limit our rights. I believe that. I also believe that the only people that can take our rights from us are US. And we will; one good idea at a time.

DaElf

I agree with you pan. The seat belt law is just the start of eventual required blue overalls and the 2 minutes of hate. I was trying to express that through my comments on this topic.

__________________
I'm sitting at my desk right now waiting for you to reply to the above message.

filtherton

Pan, how can you possibly go on about compromise when you can't even stand to be forced to smoke outside? That, sir, is compromise. It may not be the kind of compromise you wanted, but it is the kind of compromise that the majority of people wanted.

And as for nonsmokers becoming emotional, well, you're the only person in this thread to write whole paragraphs in upper case letters. It is clear to me that you are quite emotional on this given subject, more emotional than any of the nonsmokers.

All your talk of censorship is irrelevant; the right to express yourself is not the same as the right to smoke cigarettes in bars and restaurants, and frankly, you have to be delusional not to see that. I mean shit, how self important do you have to be to think that you being mildly inconvenienced in the practice of 1 habit is an obvious precursor to broad, government sanctioned repression?

If you think the ability to smoke in a bar is related to the ability to speak without fear of persecution you need to start sprinkling a little "reality" dust on those cigarettes of yours.

DaElf

If you were refering to me as the emotional one. I don't see my all caps
paragraph.

Compromise was reached when the owner of any establishment could say "you can't smoke in here" even if they wanted to extend that out onto their property that would be fine like say 25'.

It's not that smokers can't go outside. There wasn't a big hoopla about this until the legislature of a few states forced establishment owners to not allow smoking. The goverment forcing the owners of the business to not allow smoking is the problem. The public does NOT have to go into these places. That is the goverment making a choice for you.

__________________
I'm sitting at my desk right now waiting for you to reply to the above message.

analog

No, that is the government taking public health into account, and disallowing the habits of individuals in public places that are a detriment to the health of those around them.

Was it "the government making a choice for us" when they forced all asbestos to be removed and replaced in buildings, when it was found out to be so harmful? I guess business owners should have been given the right to choose to replace it or not- after all, we all can choose to go there or not, right?

Is it the government making a choice for us by insisting that all restuarants pass minimum food storage and preparation safety requirements? After all, we can choose to eat at whatever restaurant we want. Phooey on public health, I don't want the government telling private businesses how to run their shops!

Oh, certainly it's the government pushing us around by requiring frequent and thorough inspections of airplanes! After all, we can choose the airlines whose planes we wish to board- why should the government step in and demand things are safe and not endangering the health and lives of its citizens? Those assholes.

I can keep going.

The main point is that despite what you believe to be the big, bad government putting you down, they are simply removing YOUR unhealthy habit from the lungs of those people in the public with whom you happen to coexist.

If I breathe in your smoke, I am being forced to sacrifice my personal health because of your personal decisions. Do whatever you want to your own lungs, but anyone who insists they have a "right" to smoke in public places, polluting the lungs of those around them, is being ridiculous.

This is honestly a truly asinine conversation. I can't believe people are actually trying to tell us that it's their right to fuck up other people's lungs because of their personal addiction. Un-freakin'-believable.

shakran

It's not, and if someone had challenged it on constitutional grounds, things would have (hopefully) gone very badly for the cops.

Unless it's the business's own restriction (they can make whatever rules they want about not smoking on their property) then there shouldn't be. I don't know of any non smoker who would have a problem with you smoking in your car.


And I'll be at the head of the line fighting it if my town/state's government tries to ban smoking in your own car.



Several workplaces have already banned perfumes/colognes because of problems like yours. If it became a general public health issue, the government might step in. However, much as your condition is unfortunate for you, most people do not have it and it is therefore not a public health issue. A similar issue would be the government shutting down all Dairy Queens because they use peanuts, and someone might be allergic. If the general population were allergic to peanuts, then there'd be an argument there.

However since cigarettes, unlike perfumes, universally harm everyone who comes in contact with their smoke, that IS a public health issue.


Like I said. When the majority of the population develops perfume/cologne allergies, we'll talk. Until then, keep in mind that inhaling one irritant, cigarette smoke, often makes other allergic irritants much worse.

And when participating in those legal activities hurts everyone else, that's when that "freedom" dissolves.

You're not. You can still smoke.

Well. .. yeah. But if I did smoke I wouldn't WANT to be safe from those laws. Those laws are keeping me from messing up everyone else's lungs. I have no problem with that. I'd smoke in the car or in my house.



That's an argument against ALL laws. A law by definition takes away your right to choose what you want to do. I want to speed, for instance. How far do you think I'll get with the cop who's writing me a ticket for 110 in a 55 if I try to tell him that I have the right to speed because otherwise he's taking my freedom away from me?

Because people what what they want and damn everyone else. They want to smoke, and their enjoyment of burning leaves and tar takes precedence in their minds over the health of everyone else on the planet. That's what it comes down to - just another example of people being people. No one but me matters.

FoolThemAll

Absolutely right. I'm serious. I liken it to something I remember another poster saying a while back about the FDA: "If someone tries to sell snake oil, the FDA's only role should be to make sure it's 100% snake oil." What argument can you make against "we can choose to go there or not" anyway? Seems pretty airtight to me.

And on the other hand, I'm fine with the government mandating HUGE can't-miss-em signs indicating the prescence of asbestos/smoke/trans fat. People should certainly have the opportunity to understand fully the cost of setting foot in a particular building. You let those allergic to peanut butter know that "this may contain peanuts", you don't mandate the removal of the peanuts.

Bit different there. 9/11 pretty clearly demonstrated an external cost to poor airport security.

Go ahead.

The hell you are. There's no force. You can leave. You don't have a right to occupy someone else's private property and you don't have a right to modify an invitation to your liking.

Un-freakin'-believable that you keep misstating the situation. It's the smoker's right to smoke in places where the owner approves. It's the non-smoker's right to leave places where the owner approves of smoking. No one is arguing for the right "to fuck up other people's lungs".

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

shakran

Let's go through this again very slowly. Employees of the establishment cannot leave. I can't leave when I'm sent to cover a story in a smoke-filled building. Don't pull the "get another job" crap. That's a moronic argument. Many cant' get another job, and even if they could, they shouldn't have to. Do we tell sewage workers "we're not gonna give you any protective equipment - just get another job if you don't like it?" No, we don't. So until you figure out a way to safeguard the lungs of people who do NOT have a choice whether or not to be there, then go smoke in your own property, and stay the hell away from me and my lungs when you light up.

FoolThemAll

Okay, I'll go even more slowly, since the obvious response is already in your post:

They. DO. have. a. choice. They. can. leave.

They shouldn't have to? They don't have to. It's up to them whether they value the job enough to assume its costs. They DON'T have a right to that job and they DON'T have a right to modify it to their liking.

"then go smoke in your own property"

That's actually exactly what I'm arguing for. The owners decide whether smoke is allowed on their own property.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

shakran

You're still not getting this, sport, and I'm having trouble figuring out if you're being purposely obtuse about it or not. If you're worried about feeding your family you sometimes do things that are detrimental to your own health because you have an asshole employer who insists on exposing you to dangerous conditions in the name of profit. It is the job of government to protect its citizens from conditions like that. People should not have to make the choice between eating and getting cancer. You are arguing that they should. That indicates a complete lack of concern for your fellow human beings. Fuck 'em all, as long as I get my nicotine. Well, some of us have evolved beyond such selfish attitudes.


I didn't pull a stupid and decide to start smoking. it's YOUR habit, YOUR addiction, and if YOU make idiotic choices despite knowing the risks, that's your lookout. Don't drag ME down with you.

The restaurant is not YOUR private property. It is a public place, whether you like it or not. Public places have to maintain certain healthy conditions. They don't get to serve you rotting meat, they don't get to mince up the rat with the hamburger, and they don't get to masturbate into the pasta. If they do, they're severely punished, even though it was the diner's choice to eat there.

pan6467

FoolThemAll you can't win you know. They have already decided what is "in the public's best interest" and demand government do something.

They refuse to see that they are taking away rights, they refuse to even debate civilly, they want it all.

So when the smoking is a dead issue and these power hungry hate filled people decide they need to control something else.... they know exactly how to get the rights taken away.

Oh yeah and by the way Shakran I guess you must have missed the part where I stated it is getting to the point I have to smoke in my car.

Good you say?

Yeah, except then I have my son, so he has to walk to the car with me, and if he stands outside by himself while I smoke, I get into trouble, if I put him in the car while I smoke it's child endangering...... so exactly where am I to smoke?

Waiting........ 3.....2.....1...... your answer will prove beyond doubt this debate is solely about power over others and not, not smoking...... unless of course you change the hardline stance you have had this whole thread, in which case.....

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

shakran

You cannot take away a right that never existed in the first place. You do not have the right to harm me in any way. That is the right you claim we are trying to take away.

You're reading a bit much into this don't you think? It's not about hate, it's about not wanting to inhale the detrius of YOUR bad habit.


Nope, I didn't. I applaud it getting to that point. . .

Well I honestly don't have a problem with you standing next to your car while you smoke either. I don't LIKE smelling cigarettes outside, but it's fleeting and not concentrated so I'm not gonna get my feathers ruffled about it. It's when you take it INSIDE a PUBLIC AREA that I object.

Frankly, preferably nowhere. Smoking is stupid, and you know it. Yes, it's hard to quit. It's hard to do a lot of things. It was hard when I lost weight several years ago (food is every bit as addicting as cigarettes, btw), but I did it anyway and I'm much better off for it. But if you absolutely can't quit, that's your call. Just figure out a way to smoke where I don't have to inhale it too.

I don't think it did, and I don't think my stance is particularly hardline. I'm not trying to outlaw cigarettes (although it is illogical that cigarettes which hurt more than just the smoker are legal while cocaine which hurts only the snorter is illegal). If you want to kill yourself slowly with cigarettes, that's a shame, but it's your lookout. My objection is when you try to take me with you. Smoke all you want, I don't care. Don't do it around me.

pig

how about this?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

roachboy

shakran:


clearly if you can avoid all cigarette smoke you will never die.
clearly if you avoid all contaminants, you will never die or age.
time will not happen in the same way for you, if you can eliminate contaminants.

i assume your interior space is free of contaminants--empty, white, pure, filtered air, filtered light, all food taste-tested--and so outside should be as well--it is your god given right to move smoothly through contaminant free spaces.
this right has unlimited extension.
your god-given right to move through contaminant free spaces is absolute.
it overrides all others because it is yours.
and what is yours is most important.

now the rest of us, we all know this inwardly, but we are Evil and because we are Evil we do things to fuck with you. that is why smokers smoke: to fuck with you, to tamper with your absolute right to move in all directions through a contaminant free space.
why?
because we resent your absolute centrality in the universe.
we are petty foul lesser beings who resent your absolute right to move in all directions at any time through an absolutely pure space.
we are closer to mud.
we are half-formed beings who still bear unpleasant traces of the material world.
we are not yet fully spirit, not yet fully realized beings. not yet pure form which has a god given right to move in all directions through contaminant-free space.
we are ourselves contamination.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

shakran

What in the HELL are you talking about? I never said I'd be immortal if not for Pan's smoking. If you really read that into what I said you need some remedial reading comprehension classes.

Ahh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Apparently it's your god given right to contaminate those spaces by smoking and it overrides all others because it's yours and what is yours is most important. I get it now.


either this is brilliant satire in which you champion my side of the debate by showing how absurd arguments against it are, or you're insane. Which is it?

roachboy

read through your posts, shakran.
there is a hysteria about contamination running through them.
look for yourself: read them as if they had been put up by someone else, and you'll see.


i am not going anywhere near the issue of reading comprehension.
but i sometimes marvel at the powers of projection and displacement.
there is satire, but i dont think you understand it.
which is funny, given that the central target in what i posted was narcissism.

roland barthes called that kind of thing "deaf and blind criticism"---the argument is as yours is: "i dont get it therefore you are an idiot"

there is a strange loop in this, and i am not sure you want to go into it.
but whatever.
i have other things to do.
carry on.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

Don't be dense, i've repeatedly said that these bans have a large amount of support. This is actually a case of the public deciding what is in it's best interest. It's a shame you find yourself on the losing side of this position, but thems the breaks. Now i guess you know how the public urinators feel.

Pan, these aren't rights. You should stop calling them rights. Especially since you can't back up your assertion that these are rights. And as far as civility goes, you're the only one in this thread who resorted to the text equivalent of yelling.

As long as we're talking about made-up rights, let me be the first to claim that every person has the right to spend an evening at a bar without smelling like smoke; smokers want to take away that right; smokers just want to exert power over others; this is the beginning of the end of all freedom everywhere.

See how ridiculous that is?

Get over yourself. Smoking bans are not the beginning of the descent into totalitarianism. That's ridiculous. You do your position no service when you say things that make you come across as hysterical.

I smoke outside all the time. Guess what, i'm fine. I like it, even when it's 25 degrees F. I would suggest that you smoke outside.

I'm thinking more and more that this debate is about people rationalizing their disgust with inconvenient laws by coming up with really shaky, inconsistent arguments as to why those laws are bad.

For instance you have the "These laws violate my rights" argument, which completely ignores the fact that unless you make up your own definition of the word right you actually have no right to smoke. No, it's not like censorship because the constitution actually mentions something about freedom of speech; it doesn't mention tobacco products.

There's also the "business owners should be able to do whatever they want" argument, which is also ridiculous. Has anyone heard of regulatory agencies? The government? They're the people who tell businesses what they can't do and they've been doing it for a long time. It's nothing new, and to claim that this instance of regulation is somehow more heinous or "wrong" than every other instance smacks of inconsistency.

There's the "if you don't like smoke why don't you go somewhere else" argument to which it is way too easy to respond "if you don't like smoking bans why don't you move to somewhere where they don't have them". Both statements are really nothing more than a fancy way of saying "Fuck you". Really, though, it's not that simple. Like i said above, there weren't any smoke-free bars in my city before the ban, i couldn't simply "go somewhere else" unless that somewhere else was to the liquor store and then home. This never seems to get addressed when i bring it up, though.

shakran

You usually make slightly more sense than this roachboy. You're slipping. I don't have a hysteria about contamination. That's like accusing me of having a hysteria with cleanliness because i wash my hands after handling raw meat. Cigarette smoke is bad for me. I don't want cigarette smoke near me because of that. That's not hysteria, it's intelligence.

roachboy

like i said, you dont want to walk into the strange loop, the one that shows you cannot process irony when it is directed at you, the one that functions to demonstrate the narcissism that is being mocked. the more you write, the tighter you pull you bring down the mockery around you.
it is like one of those finger traps.
let it go.

----

seriously, i am a smoker and i have already repeated a couple times that smoking bans are not to me a big deal--fine, whatever--but i tend to accept the logic of worker health protection as the driver for them and think the generalization to a question of general "public health" to be shaky at best.


i dont find the liberal (in the js mill sense) discourse of rights to be relevant or interesting in this context. consequently, i dont find arguments based on that premise to be either interesting or relevant. all that the premise does is provide a pretext to formalize what we already know about from the debate itself--that there is a differend (the space defined by the ways in which parties on the opposite side of a debate talk by each other)---what is worse for both positions is that they end up like those mutually exclusive but formally correct arguments over scarce resources in hobbes...they make the issue undecidable. and with that, people resort to bluster. straw men. bullshit, in short. so it is a stupid avenue to take in this kind of context.

again, the argument that i find compelling in support of smoking bans is that of worker health, and that pertains to the folk who work restos or pubs.

as for the anxieties about contamination that use this questions as a pretext to be expressed--i think they're funny and more than a little pathetic.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

Real mature and showing how flimsy your argument is when you have to use the highlighted portion to attack.

Your refusal to talk to me like a person with respect shows exactly the superior stutus you are taking.

"We must control what others do, because they do not know how to do for themselves."

Excuse me, they are rights. For too long we have mislabelled rights as "priveleges" so that they can be taken away and/or played with.

And where exactly did I claim I had the right to smoke anywhere????? No, I stated I am more than happy to smoke in designated areas INSIDE the venue I am in. Those areas around here are already made.... separate rooms, with separate ventilations. I have the right to enjoy my dinner the same as you, I may prefer to smoke while I eat..... that is my right.

Just as it is a business owners right to serve whom he wants how he wants. Of course when I say that your side had to take it to silly juvenile extremes like "masterbating in food..." which again shows your mentality of "we are superior.... we know better so fuckin shut up and conform or we'll keep villifying you and using more juvenile attacks on you."



I think they are the start. I find most of your side's arguments very immature and as stated above, juvenile.


Lady Sage and I smoke outside of our house because we have a parrot that is very expensive and we don't want to hurt it.

I have no problem smoking outside.... I do it at work and school. I am arguing the fact that restaurant, bars and other places that historically have allowed smoking be allowed to have the owners decide what they want to do.

Ah, but then again the Constitution doesn't say anything about universal healthcare (which I have seen you for), minimum wage, guaranteeing education, etc.

As for censorship, nowhere does the Constitution say we have the right to have Tom Sawyer in our library, or Howard Stern on the radio or internet access..... show me in the Constitution where it truly gives us those rights.

I'm running late for class (have to grab a cigarette also)..... I'll finish tonight when I get home from work.... around 12:30 EST.

By the way, this is a good debate until you have to use juvenile examples to try to prove your point.... then you lose and show how weak your position is.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pig

dude, you smoke while you eat? holy shit, that's hardcore.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

guthmund

I'm a smoker and I'm all for smoking bans as long as it's a public health issue. If it's because I stink, or you're offended by the smell, or you think I don't know any better then you can bite my shiny, metal ass.

I'm even okay with them jumping on business owners about this. After all, we expect the government to protect the health of the average worker, right? I mean, there is a reasonable expectation of safety in the workplace, isn't there?

I'm a smoker. I know the dangers that entails and I choose to do it anyway. I smoke in my home, in the parking lot outside and occasionally in the car. As long as I can continue to do such, I'm with the anti-smokers. I don't have a "right" to smoke, but I do have a reasonable expectation to be able to enjoy a perfectly legal something...whatever that something happens to be. If it'll make the anti-smokers happy and help curb the blistering hate from their eyes, then "Viva la revolution!"

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

FoolThemAll

Nah, I got it all the first time. The problem's on your side.

Such may very well be the cost of feeding your family in some cases. It's just too bad that the evil employer gave you a 'feeding your family' option that was far from perfect, it would've been much better if you had no 'feeding your family' option at all and your family died hungry and cancer-free - because there's no other employment option in this fantasy scenario of yours, right?

No, it isn't. For the government to protect its citizens from such choices - if they even exist, I'm skeptical in this day and age - is for the government to violate property rights. The government shouldn't do this unless there's a preexisting rights violation to justify it.

Actually, this ad hominem attack doesn't even apply to me, as I am neither a business owner nor a smoker.

What I am saying is that I don't understand the idea that people have a right to jobs. They don't, unless they're under contract. The government may act sometimes like there is such a right, but that hardly justifies the idea.

Absurd. Of course it's private property. It's also used by the public, but only because the owner allows the public to use it.

Let me be clear here: I'm absolutely fine with a 'public place' - per your definition - serving rotting meat, making ratburgers, and jizzing up the pasta. It's none of the government's business if they conduct such business.

What is the government's business is that the 'public place' isn't deceptive or significantly incomplete in portraying these things. The government's actual job should be enforcing honesty. Make the businesses explicitly and clearly advertize that they're not using alfredo sauce on the noodles.

A business that offers such blatantly disgusting food isn't likely to attract very much of the public anyway. (Unless it's fast food, of course - we should probably ban that stuff as well.)

But a fair amount of the population is willing to tolerate filthy filthy cigarette smoke in exchange for food or wages. The government has no business breaking up such a voluntary agreement.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pig

quick question: not toungue in cheek - what's the difference in the way that businesses, or buildings zoned for business, are taxed. do they receive additional tax breaks / incentives, or are they taxed at different rates?

i'm pretty sure that a private business falls under a number of different regulations than a private home, foolthemall. i guess you would disagree with those distinctions?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

filtherton

What i said wasn't meant to be an attack. Smoking bans exist in a lot of places, including, apparently, where you live. In that sense you have already lost. And my maturity has nothing to do with this, though it does make for a handy way to ignore what i was actually saying.

Yep, that's kind've the foundation of our legal system.

Well, with that broad definition, every law that's now on the books deprives us a right. In which case your appeal to your rights doesn't really mean all that much. Public urination laws take a way my right to piss in the street. Murder laws take away my right to kill people without repurcussion. I guess if that's how you want to characterize a right, than it doesn't really matter to me that we've all lost the right to smoke in indoor public places. I would much rather have the right to eat out and go to a bar without having to deal with smoke than the right to smoke in a bar or a club or a restaurant.


All i was doing with that paragraph was transposing the framework of your argument onto my argument. Obviously it seemed just as absurd to you as it does to me. And it's not your right to smoke inside any more than it is my right to piss in the middle of the street.

I never said anything about masturbating in food. My side? I didn't know that i was speaking for anyone other than myself. In fact, i'm not speaking for anyone other than myself. If you want to call me names, you should call me names for something that i actually said, not something that someone whom you falsely associate with me did.

Well, i think that you're perhaps a little to self important when it comes to your habits. That's fine if you find "my side's" arguments juvenile. It doesn't really matter to me, at this point, how you perceive my arguments because it's pretty clear to me that you're not really having a conversation with me. What you're actually doing is arguing with whatever i represent to you, which is apparently some vague nebulous notion of what people who favor smoking bans think.

I've never asserted that any of these things are rights, so the constitution is irrelevant. The reasons those things aren't reality is that there isn't enough support for them to happen. That's one of the shitty things about living in a democracy is that you have to live with the decisions of people who disagree with you about things you think are important.

You're right, libraries, satellite radio and the internet aren't rights. Though we do have the right to most forms of free expression, a right which complements our library and internet priveliges.

It would be a better debate if you could get past your first impression of my examples and actually address them.

robodog

Personally there is exactly ONE good jazz club in Cleveland, it is a smoking establishment. If I wish to enjoy live jazz I have to put my health at risk (I'm asthmatic) because someone else can't control their vice long enough to go through an hour set without partaking. I'm a casual drinker who never has more than 2 drinks if I am driving (I'm 6'2 230lbs, so well below any limit) and I have never been an angry drunk, so my vice has never endangered others. I understand that some people have become addicted and are not able to stop, hell my brother had nodules in his lungs, quit from fear then started up again 9 months later! I would just rather that people keep their bad habits to themselves. If they are unwilling or unable to do so for themselves I am perfectly willing (and just did) vote to enforce my right not to be negatively impacted by their inconsideration.

shakran

It is not automatically OK for an employer to endanger the health of his employees just because there may be other options. And in all likelihood there really aren't other options -at least none that have the earnings potential of being a (good) waiter who gets good tips. Remember that economic thread in here with the picture of THOUSANDS of people lining up for 200 jobs at a candy store? That shows you that jobs aren't easy to come by these days.





If it's not the government's job to protect us then I suppose you support getting rid of all government health, safety, and food inspectors?


I don't know where you got that. I never said they have a right to a job. They don't. But when they do have a job they have a right to perform the duties expected of them without being exposed to harmful conditions. That's why OSHA goes apeshit when someone has to use caustic chemicals and isn't given proper protective equipment. Because that person has the right to expect his employer to make sure he won't get hurt on the job.


Private property that the owner invites the public to access operates under very different rules than regular private property. If it's accessible to the public it has to have certain safety features in place- - -good fire escapes, fire suppression if it's a certain size, etc. The government can, will, and should regulate the conditions in that building so that the general public, when they enter that building, is not exposed to needless danger.

Well. . .That's crazy. Sorry, but it is.



Why? They're not allowed to protect the citizens according to your argument, why should they be allowed to enforce honesty. And that doesn't even address the fact that the government enforcing honesty would be somewhat like George Carlin enforcing FCC swearing regulations

See, this is where you guys either don't understand our position, or are purposely misinterpreting it. We should not ban fast food. Some have called for a ban on fast food and junk food and they're idiots. If you eat a big mac, it's not going to hurt me in any way even if you do it right next to me in a tiny room. If you smoke a cigarette, it will hurt me.


Tell me why you feel you have the right, and are justified, in hurting everyone around you.

DaElf

If you know that those things are going on and you go in there whos fault is that? You know if a bar has a non smoking policy or not. Most of those other things you mentioned are done behind the scenes where the consumer can not see nor make an educated decision to use the service/establishment.

The establishment owner is not pumping smoke into the air. He simply allows his customers to smoke if they want to. They are not trying to hurt you like you try to make it seem. No one is running around with a cigarette blowing smoke in your face saying "I hope you get cancer". YOU go there YOU get the cancer maybe. You see there was no "they" in that sentence where YOU get cancer. Which is what you anti smokers are worried about isn't it? The YOU factor.

You don't have to coexist in the bar that a guy bought and set up and let people smoke in. Just like I don't have to coexist with you on this forum but I choose to. If I don't like something here I'll leave. I'm not going to try and change forum rules every where because you annoy me and it may raise my blood pressure and some day lead to a heart attack.

All of these anti smoking arguments are saying that it is ok to tell the "establishment owner" to not allow his customers to not do something that will hurt you if you choose to let it hurt you. Seems akin to big brother to me. No one is saying it's ok to hurt non smokers. It's not ok to hurt other people. By going into the bar people aren't hurting you, you are hurting your self.

So choose to not go. It's not the owners fault you don't smoke. Just like me telling a gay bar owner that he needs to change his bar to straight only because I'm not gay makes no sense. He shouldn't be forced to cater to you or any specific group if he doesn't want to.

__________________
I'm sitting at my desk right now waiting for you to reply to the above message.

biznatch

This thread, and specifically the link posted above (whyquit.com) has actually encouraged me to stop smoking.
Not that I care about others that much, because I usually smoke away from public doorways, always outside, and never stand next to others when I smoke.

I'm not a heavy smoker at all, and have started very recently, but it's really not doing anything good for me, and I'd rather not have to smell bad, be less athletic (bike rides are sooo much harder when you smoke).

I just hope that I'll be able to "NEVER TAKE ANOTHER PUFF!" like the site says.

As for why people hate smokers, there are lots of scenarios where I can understand it. Whenever I've been to a nice restaurant, with top quality food, I've always hated smelling smoke when the restaurant allowed it. It ruined it all, the wine, the taste of the food, and the pleasant atmosphere.

Also, many smokers are inconsiderate. All my smoker friends would always put out their cigarettes on the floor, and leave the butts there, and it's not the greatest sight when you're walking around the street.

I don't think cigarettes should be illegal, but I think smokers should be more courteous and considerate.
The fact is, non-smokers do not bother other people with bad smell or endanger their lives, so I think smokers should try their best at doing the same.

DaElf

So because you didn't like the smoke the restaurant the owner should by law not be able to allow it? Becuase you didn't like it you get to tell him what to do? I know you didn't say that but that is what is happening around the country.


Socially acceptable to use stereotypes now?

The law can't enforce courtesy.

GL with the quittting. Smoking is definetly not something anyone should do. Quit now every puff just makes you more addicted!

__________________
I'm sitting at my desk right now waiting for you to reply to the above message.

shakran

We're forgetting a basic concept of our system of government here. Less than 25% of the American public are smokers (source, CDC survey 2003). That means the majority of us are not.

What makes you guys think that 25% of the people get to decide for the other 75%? More than 3/4s of us do not smoke, and therefore presumably would prefer you not smoke in buildings we are in. In short, you're in the minority.

That's incredibly weak.

And businesses who dump noxious chemicals into the river aren't trying to hurt the environment either. They're just trying to get rid of waste without paying for it. What's your point? Whether you're trying to or not, you are.

No, they're saying "I really don't give a crap if you get cancer"

Yes. The vast majority of us are antismokers and WE (that's plural too, quit acting like it's only one of us) are tired of YOU harming us because you have an unfortunate habit.

Hell I think we're being pretty nice about it. We're saying smoke outside, not inside. We're not trying to ban your drug (like most other addictive, harmful drugs are already). We're just telling you to take your drug away from us.

FoolThemAll

Depends on the distinction. The inability of the property owner to decide whether there's smoke on his property? No, I don't agree with that one.

It is if the employee agrees to it.

Nah. They're still good for ensuring that the place of business is exactly as the owner claims it is.

Apologies, but this position seems just as odd to me. Would you support the right of the owners to fire anyone who complains about harmful conditions? Since they don't have a right to that job? That's a compromise I could actually get behind, but I somehow doubt you're similarly receptive.

The right you're suggesting exists, in the absence of the right to a job, is both nonsensical and useless. Unless, of course, people have the right to a job once they have the job, is that it?

Well, I agree that the general public should be ensured easy, safe exit from the building. And really, fire precautions make sense as a whole, because fires can lead to external costs. Give me an external cost and I'll back legally mandated prevention.

Well. . .That's a useless comment. Sorry, but it is. You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

They're not allowed to protect the citizens from voluntary choices. Being deceived is not a voluntary choice.

Will me eating jizz pizza - hypothetically, you understand - hurt you in any way if I do it next to you in a tiny room? Because that's what the 'ban fast food' idea was in response to.

Not everyone. Just everyone who assented to the harm by stepping foot on property that allows smoking. See, it doesn't sound so crazy when you state it in an honest way.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pig

foolthemall,

from my perspective, i think that while i find your position interesting, i just don't think its going to fly. it sounds like you're not on board with public nuissance laws, the enforcement of public safety codes and regulations, etc. while i can see where you're coming from, i just don't see your positions as pragmatic. in your society, is literacy required? is there an absolute, enforceable common language? are children always supervised? is the landowner / business owner responsible for people who don't understand the dangers they are walking into? can a sign be posted in a legally correct, but potentially misleading manner?

as i understand, our society basically takes the position that the risk of having practical misunderstandings or accidental exposures to these materials / safety situation is such that if you're going to have a publicly accessible business / property, there are some safety considerations that you simply have to avoid. period. you can't put fugi sticks in your front yard at work, with a sign that says "what out for sharp shit laden sticks." i mean, someone could have avoided your booby trapped property. you put up a very clear sign. but they didnt' see it. they were preoccupied. they were on medication for the first time. they don't read. they step on sharp sticks of shit, and i'm thinking you're going to have a little legal problem.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style