FoolThemAll

Given that the smokers/owners lost something and gained nothing, your verdict doesn't really make any sense.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

theycallmelisa

As a smoker, I personally don't mind the bans on INDOOR facilities, but once I take my smoke outside, you have no right to complain. I miss sitting after a meal and having a cig and a drink, so when possible, I choose to sit in the outdoor patio that a restaurant may have. If there is a non-smoker sitting a table away from me, I'm sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it. Cigarettes have been around for ages, have been a part of many peoples daily lives, and always will be, me having a smoke outdoors, where the second hand smoke is not as confined is about the best I'll do for you.

A non-smoking aquaintance of mine with a two year old, once asked me to butt out while our kids were at the park and we were on the bench watching. Not because it offended HER, but because she didn't want her son to see someone smoking. Uh, no. She will not be able to protect her son from ever seeing or being around a smoker, and neiither will you (non-smokers complaining about people smoking outdoors nearby) ever be able to shield yourself from all of the environmental hazards around you.

Don't sit there are bitch about insurance premiums going up and you have to pay more blah blah blah, you think that alcoholics don't contribute? With their increasing medical costs for liver disease, treatment centres, etc.

Smoking is the one addiction that there is no treatment centre for. I'm not sure about the states, but as far as I know, in canada, (correct me if i'm wrong) an employer cannot fire you if you are going to get treatment for an addiction, b/c as it's an addiction, you cannot be held fully responsible. For all addictions except smoking. Maybe if society were to make it easier to quit, there'd be less smokers, and less people for you to bitch about, but until then, you will always have to deal with the unpleasentries of smoke. If it bothers you, lets say while you're standing at a bus stop, politely ask the person to move, chances are they would without argument.

What a petty thing to only complain of the smell and have that be a major "pillar" to your arguments. Are you exempt from all of the other offensive odours such as B.O. or strong perfumes? What do you do to deal with those, and why can't you apply that to those smelling of smoke?

And while you have to accept that smoking will always be around and bother you, I guess I have to accept that there will always be people like you who were born to complain and challenge anything.


** not directed to any one person: kept general to the non-smoking complainers.

cyrnel

I smoked when I was young. Nothing serious but it was a several times nightly thing. Somewhere along the line I got tired of the stench. I still completely love the smell of tobacco, just not tobacco smoke. It's a bit like the smell of tequila if you just had a tough night with it.

As for being surprised at others' revulsion, that only makes sense to me as a form of denial. Or maybe as frustration with a difficult situation. But if I were to walk around in public launching 5-10 minute fragrant farts, and do it 10-30 tmes every day, I'd expect to generate a certain amount of animosity toward my cause. (more or less depending on my line-of-fire consideration)

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

filtherton

That depends on your perspective. I smoke and i don't really feel like i lost all that much. The net gain is definitely positive. Whether business owners lost or gained depends on the business. I know many are doing better business, some are probably doing worse.

Xera

My point in all of this is still the same, all I've heard so far in response is a very typical response. Somewhere along the way it has been decided that basic civility does not apply to smokers. Can anyone explain to me how that is anything BUT rude and obnoxious behavior? Wrap it up in words like, "concern" and "but I don't like the smell" and still, it's just rude. BO smells just as much, probably more, I dont know because as a smoker I don't really smell the smokey smell much, but you just don't say to someone with BO, "you stink" and then justify your actions as anything but rudeness. If your going to be ill-mannered, at least admit to what you are.

This is not some theory that I have that someday might happen. It is happening NOW. There was a time when only those companies that had to comply with minimum wage laws had to ban smoking on premise, now its all places where work is performed.

I have a friend who OWNS HIS OWN TRUCK and drives it across country delivering stuff. I'll admit I don't know much about his business. I do know that while he was in California he got a ticket for smoking in his OWN TRUCK, no passangers, because he was doing business at the time. Tell me how that protects the nonsmoker from inhaling my carcinogens? tell me, is that not a sign that we are indeed moving further away from protecting the innocent to vilifying people who aren't hurting anyone but themselves?

I repeat, I can get a ticket for smoking in my own vehicle here in redneck acres.

Protect the innocent I was all for, but I would dearly love to hear some real justification for the act of villifying me when I'm not hurting anybody but myself.

__________________

~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~

pan6467

I still don't see one person advocating for smoking bans, say they think cigarettes should be illegal. NOT ONE.

They all say "it's your choice, to smoke just not in public." They'll even go so far as to defend the government fining people smoking in their own cars and homes. But they NEVER once say make it illegal.

Know why?

2 reasons:

Because they want to be able deny they truly want control and power

and

they know they cannot live without the taxes generated.

__________________
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?"

cyrnel

Christ, well, I don't think it should be banned. If you want to get all rational then yes I believe regulating tobacco as a drug would save society plenty. It might even open up the possibility of justice for the big-tobacco pricks, though surely the bosses would skate while the workers and other small guys would bear the brunt.

And I'm not sure where it would stop. It'd be one step beyond helmet laws. What other hazardous or valueless activities can we do without? Fast food? Reality television?

I agree the taxes are a form of addict penalty, not unlike state lottos.

With all that, my compassion stops where I inhale the stuff. Keep it to yourself and I'm buying the next beer.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

filtherton

You're right pan, you've got smoking ban supporters all figured out. It certainly has nothing to do with the foul smell and the links to adverse health effects. Perhaps you should follow you're own advice concerning childish accusations and stop flinging this nonsense.

I do think that you should be able to smoke in your car, provided there aren't any children in it at the time.

I don't care about the taxes collected from smokers, except if they're going to be used to pay for the extra drain that smokers put on health care. Beyond the point where you pay for the collective strain your habit places on society you can have the money back for all i care.

I also don't feel the need to control your behavior beyond the point where you expose random people to carcinogens in confined spaces. Even if i did want to control your behavior, your ignoring reality if you think that every sociological system ever isn't predicated on the coerced control of its member's behavior. This includes our legal system, the tfp, your relationship with your family and friends. If you think that controlling other people's behavior is inherently a bad thing then you might be happier finding an island where you can be alone.

Infinite_Loser

I don't understand the large amount of debate here.

If you want to smoke on your own property, then more power to you. However, as far as public property is concerned, no one has the right to infringe upon another person's health. Currently, second hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable deaths a year in the United States.

If you want to slowly kill yourself off, that's great! But to expect people to change their living style to keep themselves from being killed off by your bad habit is BS.

What do you lose is you're not allowed to smoke in public? Nothing.
What could I lose if you're allowed to smoke in public? My life.

It's as simple as that.

PS> I know for a fact that the taxes generated from the sale of cigarettes don't come anywhere near the costs of caring for those suffering from smoking-related illnesses.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

FoolThemAll

Well, here's one reason for it:

Restaurants aren't public property.

Sure. But net gain doesn't necessarily imply win-win. So you won out on this deal. It's still not clear how smokers who enjoy smoking in restaurants/bars/ect and owners who are inclined to let them, experienced anything but a loss.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

n0nsensical

Still, there's a substantial difference between places on private property that are open to the public and those that aren't. For example, it's legal to say you won't allow any black people in your private home on private property, but it's illegal to say you won't allow any black people in your open-to-the-public restaurant on private property. Another more related example is that it's perfectly fine to have rats and cockroaches in your kitchen when you prepare your own food which wasn't properly refrigerated, but a restaurant can be shut down for having the same situation itself.

Since I usually do lean libertarian, I have some sympathy for the pro-smoking argument. The public health argument for banning smoking isn't as strong as for banning unsanitary conditions, but I still think it's valid. Maybe I would have a different opinion if I was a smoker. It's certainly nice to live in a place where smoking is banned, though to me the smoke isn't nearly as bad as the cigarette butts which smokers are determined to litter over every square foot of the planet, so I'd like to see littering laws enforced once in a while along with the smoking ban. I live for the day I see somebody get a $1,000 fine for littering a butt. (hey, I finally thought of an answer for that thread in Living!) I once went to a bar in a state where smoking wasn't banned. I made the mistake of bringing a leather jacket into this place and it reeked for a week. And there are certainly places even in California I go where illegal smoking is tolerated, but it's never nearly as bad as in a full-on smoking state, and it also helps that it's not tobacco but something else that a lot of people are smoking. Is that making things stink a property of tobacco itself or the shit that's added to cigarettes? Dried tobacco leaves themselves don't smell nearly as much as say, cannabis buds, yet you can burn down all the cannabis you want and you wouldn't know it the next day.

Lasereth

Why is this thread going? Why does this thread have politics and LAWS in it? Why does it have regulations and freedom arguments littered through it?

The debate that needs to be argued is how many smokers (most in this thread) think it's ok to make me stink and have a hard time breathing. Are you fucking kidding me?? This isn't about laws, it's about how idiotic it is that smokers have ZERO ethical qualms with making me stink and have trouble breathing. Laws and regulations and bullshit aside, I'm BAFFLED by the fact that most smokers think it's ethically fine to stink up non-smokers. The laws and regulations concerning smoking is an entirely different discussion. This discussion is about who wants to be an asshole in public and who doesn't. I don't care if you smoke. I seriously don't. But don't smoke when it affects me negatively because it means you're an asshole who doesn't care about others.

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

shakran

Wrong on both counts. Frankly I think that in consideration of other drug laws cigarettes should logically be illegal. Seems kinda stupid to say "all these drugs are bad for you and so they're illegal, but cigarettes are bad for you too and they're not illegal." It just doesn't make sense, and I feel laws should be logical.

Realistically I think ALL drugs should be legal. If you want to kill yourself by overdosing on meth, hey, go to town. That's your decision, it doesn't effect me, and I don't think the government should be in the position of legislating stupidity when that stupidity only effects the one being stupid.

So yes, I absolutely think cigarettes should be legal, and it's not because I secretly want to be an evil overlord controlling every aspect of Pan's paranoid life. It's because I think if you want to smoke, that should be your choice.

As far as the taxes generated, if we dropped cigarette taxes, we'd just tax something else to make up for it, so that's a pretty weak argument.

But I said the government shouldn't be in the position of legislating stupidity when the stupidity only effects the stupid. But when you're being stupid and it puts me in danger, the government absolutely should step in. That's why there are reckless driving laws. That's why there are laws against digging pit traps in sidewalks. And that's why there should be laws restricting YOU from harming ME with your cigarettes.

Now, I've said my piece. . .Go read Lasereth's post again, and think long and hard about what you're actually doing when you decide to light up near nonsmokers.

fatbob

joining this debate quite late on - but for what it is worth i agree with this. if heroin, cocaine, weed, lsd, etc, etc are illegal because they are bad for you then alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. i say make everything legal, control it at a national level, let people do what they want in their own time and space, make it as safe as possible for every user, tax the buggery out of it and then provide as much information and education as possible to everyone so that they can make their own decision.

i can't understand why a smoker would argue the right to pass on their poisonous secondhand smoke to other people (especially children) but then i'll never understand why someone would want to drink so much that they have no control over their actions and do really agressive stupid things that they wouldn't normally do (did you know that 85% of all violent crimes in britain are committed under the influence of alcohol?)

anyway that's my two tuppence worth

__________________
change happens when those who don't normally speak get heard by those who don't normally listen.

FoolThemAll

Yeah, I know there are differences like these. But I honestly think they shouldn't exist. It's still their property and their right to be a racist asshole or an unsanitary slob. I fully support the government making them be very upfront about whatever 'standards' they hold, but as long as the general public knows what they're getting into, such an owner should be allowed to extend the invitation for people to enter his property.

The invitation is, after all, what makes it public-accessible private property as opposed to private property, no? As long as the offer isn't deceptive, they should be allowed to make it.

Sure it is. The topic began with a smoker's rant. Related laws, smoking bans in particular, fit just fine within the scope of the topic.

They aren't 'making' you stink. I maintain that this is one of the biggest illusions running through the thread. You have a choice in the matter: don't set foot on private property, public-accessible or otherwise, that allows smoking, and you won't stink.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Xera

I'm still stuck on the original question made by Hagatha. It is a question that I have asked several of my friends in the past few months, with no real answers. I thought there might be some answers here if I kept coming back to this issue, but still, there are not.

Smoking directly causes the deaths of 400,000 people a year I grant you that. How many deaths does alcohol indirectly lead to every year? Do the women that die because their drunken husbands beat the crap out of them get counted in the number of deaths due to alcohol that the CDC publishes? How about the number of moms that kill themselves 'cause some drunk ran over her daughter when said daughter was checking the mail?

You (collective you) say that it's ok to be so condescending to smokers because what they do directly impacts the lives of others who have chosen not to smoke and some guy getting drunk doesn't mean you have to live with the consequences.

Go sit in on an Ala-non meeting sometime and then tell me that only the guilty are paying for the addiction of the drunkard.

I've responded to the smoking ban issue in this thread a few times, not to argue with the idea that smokers should not be allowed to harm others, but because I can see that this trend of banning smoking is getting more and more out of hand. Protecting the innocent is fine by me, vilifying the idiot is not- yes I classify myself and anyone else stupid enough to take up smoking as an idiot.

The two issues are related because if it were just a matter of public concern then people would be satisfied with smokers can't smoke inside of places that non smokers would be expected to go, such as restaurants, bars, amusement parks, etc. But it is an issue of finger pointing and disgust when the laws are then made that we can't smoke in our own vehicles, or in some cases, outside unless we're in a specific smoking section.

I can understand not wanting to stink. I feel the same way about people wearing cologne and perfume. I do NOT advocate making laws restricting peoples rights to go swimming in the crap if that’s what they want to do, because from there its such a small step to regulating how often people MUST bathe, and then its not much of a jump to legislating what soaps they can use. I know that's a little extreme, but it’s the logical conclusion to passing legislation based on how a person smells.

Once you get past the health issues, which you do by banning smoking indoors where nonsmokers are likely to be, all you're advocating for is the right to control how a person smells- and that's too much legislation on personal choices. Sorry if my smell offends you, lots of people's smells offend me. I'll deal with it if it means I don't have to have a law that regulates it.

__________________

~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~

theycallmelisa

There are too many posts to quote, but this one stood out to me.


If you're a non-smoker, chances are that you live in a non-smoking house and are generally in a non-smoking environment majority of the time. So if you think that by being around a smoker lets say in a restaurant, or standing beside one at a bus stop, that you are going to inhale enough second hand smoke in your lifetime to kill you, I'd say you have some paranoia issues.

What can you say about the people who have never smoked a day in their life, but end up with some form of cancer? Are you immediately going to blame it on 2nd hand smoke? A family friend of mine is a health nut, ate only organic foods, never smoked, always excersised, and now only has 1-2 years to live because of lymphoma. Are you going to tell me that is somehow related to her being in our "smoke filled" house at Christmas a couple of years in a row? Sure it's not a cardiac disease, but who can be so sure that it's not caused by something else in the environment. Lung cancer isn't caused ONLY by smoke, although I'm aware it's the leading contributor.

What about the 85 year old man that has smoked since he was 13 and dies only from old age, compared to a 45 year old who develops COPD from smoking only 10 years?

I'm not saying that smoking is a good thing, or that we should all just take a shot at it, since it's hit and miss whether or not you'll die from it, I'm just saying that there are so many different environmental factors that play into getting a disease, that to pin point it on second hand smoke is and easy target and pretty ignorant.

fatbob

Xera you are kind of arguing that two wrongs make a right ...
just because alcohol is bad for people too and is allowed in public places should mean that smoking should be two.
all that can be said is that unless you are an aggressive or stupid drinker, having a few drinks, even getting completely drunk, does not harm the person sitting opposite you, or the person working behind the bar or the child living in your house. smoking does that. should bar workers or waiters be forced to work in an environment that harms them? you might argue that they should and 'cos they have a choice to seek employment elsewhere, but this is not always possible - I honestly think that people have the right to breath clean air in their workplace and that it is the law's job to protect this right.

__________________
change happens when those who don't normally speak get heard by those who don't normally listen.

Infinite_Loser

That just goes to show you how much you know about second hand smoke.

You'd have to be a fool to believe that all forms of cancer are caused by second hand or smoke or to believe that anyone stated as much. While we don't know the causes of all cancer, it's rather easy to determine whether or not secondhand smoke was a factor in someone's death.

What about them? It still doesn't take away from the dangers of smoking/secondhand smoke.

What are you talking about? At least 53,000 deaths a year in the United States have been attributed to second hand smoke (That's about 145 deaths per day). Furthermore, there have been quite a few studies done which point out that second hand smoke causes a wide array of medical conditions. To say that second hand smoke is not the cause of a large number of medical problems in the United States is, in your own words, pretty ignorant.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Xera

fatbob, I think you skimmed what I wrote and then responded. I tried very hard to make it clear I am upset about the amount of abuse that smokers get in relation to other people with other addictions. Furthermore, my father is an alcoholic, please don't ever try to tell me that drinkers don't harm the kids in their house. Even when they aren't abusive drunks, they still cause harm.

The original question "Are the other addictions somehow more acceptable? Are they any less destructive?" was there to illustrate that. I'm sorry you did not understand that point.

Please read my entire post before you get on to me about my views on smoking in places non smokers would be expected to be. I was VERY plain on my views on those SPECIFIC bans.

Again, my only problem is with the fact that these bans keep getting more and more broad, and are now including places that in NO WAY protect nonsmokers from my second hand smoke. The only problem I had with the original bans, not smoking in restaraunts or workplaces etc, without proper ventilation, was that I was pretty sure it was just a matter of time that the laws would be expanded upon. I've given examples of what is happening here and in California to show why it is that I fear this.

Again, make whatever law you think you need to in order to protect your SAFETY. Do not make laws that are simply about enforcing your will on others without being able to show a health benifit. My smoking outdoors does not harm you in anyway at all, or at least not nearly as much as your average everyday SUV.

__________________

~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~

pan6467

Ok ban supporters......

I want to own a private smoking club, I want to hire only smokers, since that would be "discrimination", I hire them as "independant contractors'.

I go out and every Friday, I get the hottest bands in town to play. I start getting a good reputaution as a true hotspot.

Non smokers want in, I have to let them if they pay the same fees to get in.

All of a sudden a group of them start trying to get the government to fine me because even though I went by the rules and every member before they were allowed in had to sign a contract that smoking would not be an issue with them.

Why can I not do this? Why will you not allow this? And who would win the court 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?"

filtherton

Actually, if it's a private club you don't have to let nonsmokers in.

And really, i don't care. Do what you want to do. Start a club. What i will or won't allow is irrelevant since i am not the law. Who wins the court case depends on what the court case is and what the laws are in your area. As a hypothetical example, this one falls woefully short.

shakran

Plus, we're not talking about private smoking clubs, whatever that is. We're talking about restaurants. Businesses where the primary purpose is feeding people for money.

FoolThemAll

Hmm.

Hypothetical: A property owner turns his property into a private club that sells food to its members. The only requirement for membership is a willingness to tolerate indoor cigarette smoke. In all other respects, it's identical to those restaurants that are no longer allowed to allow smoking.

Do you have a problem with such a place?

And what substantial difference is there between this hypothetical and the restaurants that previously allowed smoking before the ban?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pan6467

Ah but then there are discrimination lawsuits.

Really and why does this fall "woefully short"?

So if I make this a hot nightclub, for smokers only and say, I'm making some big money, when the non-smoking Nazis come after me, you'll stand up for my rights to have this place? You won't say "well, you are still a place of business and except for that fee thingy, you still serve the public so smoking should be banned..... even though that was the whole purpose of you opening and running the business, it has become too big now and too many of your patrons want there to be no smoking."

You won't say that.... and you'll defend my rights?

(BTW in Ohio that place would be illegal anyway, because as stated above, doesn't matter if the employees smoke, doesn't matter what the business is.... as long as I have 1 employee it is illegal to have smoking there at any time.)

__________________
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?"

Infinite_Loser

In the real world, smoking is prohibited in order to protect the health of the general public. Your hypothetical situation is based solely on the exclusion of one class of people, without a feasible reason to do so. Sure, you could probably argue that a non-smoker doesn't have to go to your club, but then why should someone be forced to suffer for someone else's bad habits? A smoker refraining from lighting up for an hour or so won't kill them. The same can't be said for a non-smoker forced to sit around a smoker for an hour.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

pan6467

But it is a PRIVATE smoking club..... this demonstrates the power and control one must have.

But the reality is that it is a PRIVATE club that caters to the smoking population. You demand we can't smoke in public, so we open private nightclubs to cater to the people who wish to smoke.

Why is that so wrong?

You say "it's in the best interest of public health, why does a non-smoker have to suffer." You people use the excuse over and over... and say it isn't about control but it is. In this hypothetical, you would be paying a club to join only to destroy it because you choose not to believe in it.

THAT IS CONTROL.

That's the same as people joining the NRA and then demanding that handguns cause people to get excessively brave and raise tensions and lead to gunfights, so you don't want shooting ranges at the clubs.

It makes no sense.... it is all about control.

__________________
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?"

filtherton

There are still golf clubs that refuse to allow female members, discrimination be damned.

It's completely tangential to reality. You're not opening a club, these bans(at least in my city) don't apply to private clubs anyway. You're going awfully far out on a limb to prove a point that's irrelevant.

A better hypothetical experiment would be for me to ask you if you support lifting smoking bans in hospitals. They are private businesses too. The people who got to them definitely have a choice about where to go, or whether to go.

Actually, i wouldn't defend your rights because this isn't a matter of rights inasmuch as it doesn't concern actual rights. I'd defend your rights if they were actually trying to take them away. This issue isn't really a big deal to me either way, though i prefer the bans.

All this talk of rights and yet you fail to realize that a lack of smoking bans deprives the general populace of the "right" to go to a bar without having to deal with cigarette smoke.

Well, you don't like it you can always move, right? Or try and organize your efforts, participate in the democratic process, vote for candidates who've taken a lot of money from big tobacco, start a petition. Certainly complaining about the loss of privileges that you may or may not even be willing to actually fight for on the internet won't really help.

pan6467

Very true.

No, I'm going to a point that is probably going to become reality in many cities.

No, there are certain industries that smoking up until recently has always been permitted: Bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, hotels. Those, I feel are the acceptable places to smoke in. Places of public health, stores, etc. no.

Why isn't it my "right" to open a private club where I want to cater a population that doesn't discriminate in any way...... just states that if you enter you must accept the fact people will be smoking, cigarettes, cigars, pipes.

And you have the right NOT to go there and to find one that doesn't have smoking. Eventually if the non-smoking bars and establishments start doing better business, then the smoking establishments will turn non-smoking to make money.

You are taking away choice because YOU want what you want and refuse to allow choice.


I'm just trying to have a discussion and show a point of view. This interests me, because I see these people getting ready for their next target, their next power play.

Like I said either make it illegal, stop taxing it then tell us where we can smoke, or allow the above business owners the right to decide what they feel is in their best interest.

I used to have immense respect for you, Filtherton, you always had a voice of reason... but not so much on this issue.

On a personal note: 1) I promised my son I'd quit for his birthday Dec. 8th ( hopefully I do) and 2) whether this was about smoking or soda drinking or coffee or anything else.... I'd still be as adamnant as I am. Because I believe in the rights of people and that society grows better with freedoms and decisions that are open than to have decisions dictated and freedoms taken away.

But that's just me.

__________________
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?"

filtherton

Here's the thing. You assert that you have rights as a smoker and that business owners have rights as business owners. What you ignore are the rights of people who aren't business owners or smokers. By any definition that you've offered the rights of these groups are equivalent in scope and magnitude. Your right to smoke in a bar and a bar owner's right to allow smoking in a bar, and a person's right to go to a bar and not smell like smoke are all based on the same legal footing. There's nothing remotely inherent about any of them. By these definitions, rights only exist in the space not specifically mentioned by the legislature, or, in the case of referendums, the people directly.

The fact that you used to be able to engage in a certain activity doesn't make that activity inherently something you should always be able to do.

At some point you have to recognize that you live in a place where, if the stars are in proper alignment, people have the ability to participate in the process of making laws. Sometimes these people will make laws that you disagree with and that's just how it goes.

One flaw in your position is that you seem to think that your specific habits should fall outside the scope of what the general public can and can't regulate in a fashion that they see fit. This is a mistake. Your "rights" as a smoker depend on how much smoking society wants to put up with and once society decides to tell you no you don't have the right anymore. That's just how it is.

You could say that you want the right to smoke in bars back, but that assertion really holds no more weight than the assertion that i want the right to go to a bar and not deal with smoke. In practice, rights such as these are slippery things and it really just ends up being an agree to disagree type of thing.

Another flaw is that you support bans in places that match the criteria you've cited as the basis for your opposing bans in bars. It used to be that you could smoke everywhere. If you want to see people smoking in hospitals you just need to watch more movies from the 60's. The community college i used to go to still has ashtrays built into the walls. At some point, we all had the "right" to smoke in any private businesse that chose to allow us to smoke. Now we don't, and apparently you see some wisdom in that change.


On a side note, good luck quitting. I need to do the same thing.

FoolThemAll

See, I dispute that he's doing that. I don't see any actual rights violations in a restaurant owner allowing people to smoke on his private property. No one has a right to the products of a smoke-free restaurant. Hell, no one has a right to the products of a restaurant, period. (Other than restaurant owners, of course.)

The former rights are based upon the right to property. The latter right is based upon... nothing. There's nothing equal about the right to modify your own property and the 'right' to modify someone else's property without permission.

No, but the fact that non-smokers are free to avoid the harm caused by said activity does make it something that you should always be able to do.

Well, sure. It's not like there's never been an unjust law before. But this thread has basically become a debate concerning the quality of this law. We get that it's a law, the question is this: is it a good law? Still looks like a solid no to me.

If society tells me that I don't have the right to smoke on my own property, then that's not society getting rid of the right, that's society violating the right. The right's still there. The right to property and free movement wasn't partially nonexistent when slavery was legal, it was partially violated (no, I'm not comparing the magnitudes, that would be silly).

Sure it does. A lot more weight. One's based in the right to property, the other's based in nothing.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

filtherton

Well, i don't see any actual rights violations in a restaurant owner not being allowed to let people smoke during business hours.

The right to property? Is that where you can do whatever you want on your own property or is that where you have the right to own whatever property you want? As far as i know, neither of them exist.

Public defecation: we could all avoid the harm caused by it so we should always be able to do it. Tell me what's wrong with that sentence.

I imagine your tune would change if you had asthma.

It really all depends on who you let define your rights. Even on your own property you can't do whatever the hell you want.

Well, in practice, the right to property doesn't really mean all that much. This is where we agree to disagree.

FoolThemAll

With some obvious caveats (you have to purchase/receive the property in order to have the right to it, you're responsible for costs imposed without consent on property that isn't yours), both.

Nothing. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I've said before in this thread that people should be held responsible for the external costs they create - costs that affect property that isn't theirs.

Nope.

No, even on your own property, you can't do damage to property that isn't yours. Unless, of course, the property owner consents to the damage. Explicitly or implicitly.

Rights aren't 'is'-statements, rights are 'ought'-statements. So it's very possible that rights aren't upheld in practice. This doesn't diminish their meaning.

If we can't agree that a right to property exists, then sure, we're at a standstill.

But I'd like you to address this, because I'm wondering where our disagreement really lies:

Hypothetical: A property owner turns his property into a private club that sells food to its members. The only requirement for membership is a willingness to tolerate indoor cigarette smoke. In all other respects, it's identical to those restaurants that are no longer allowed to allow smoking.

Do you have a problem with such a place?

And what substantial difference is there between this hypothetical and the restaurants that previously allowed smoking before the ban?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Sultana

How about that restaurant is moved to a area (state, county, whatever) where a restaurant like that is tolerated/allowed? Much like a non-smoker has to seek out places of business where non-smoking is enforced. I'm sure there are several fine states where options like this are available.

Or perhaps it will be suggested that the non-smokers/those who physically suffer because of cigarette smoke be the ones who move to a place (ranging from changing where they work/conduct business/eat out/enjoy recreational activities/live) where they are safe. Well, I don't think that I should have to move to a different location because of a health issue that I have no choice over, to accomodate the results of those who do have a choice (to smoke or not).

Dealing with cigarette smoke is not merely an inconvenience to me, it's a matter of life or death (worst-case scenario, without my meds). I am not the only one in this situation, by far. I would give so much to not have this problem, but I will have to deal with it to the end of my days.

And for the record, I no longer wear perfume or scented products in the workplace, to accomodate those who have migranes triggered by these things. I know how much suffering that can cause, and I surely don't have to indulge in that kind of thing, and for me it's a complete non-issue.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

filtherton

Like i tried to say above, i don't care. I don't have a problem with that setup. I also said that i don't have a problem with other people deciding that they don't want a set up like that and making it illegal. I don't have a problem with regulation of private property and business. I actually think that regulation of private property and businesses is essential to a well functioning society. This seems to be where we differ.

One situation actually exists in reality and the other not so much.

DaElf

Choo! Choo! Next stop.. socialism All Aboard!

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

filtherton

Well, if anyone's wondering who stole their ability to put things in historical context, i think it's safe to say that DaElf isn't the culprit.

Do you mean socialism like where there are labor laws? Or socialism like where there are workplace safety regulations? Or socialism like where personal property doesn't mean the same thing as personal fiefdom? No, you probably mean socialism as some vaguely defined, poorly understood bogeyman to be trotted out as evidence of your own lack of a broader understanding of political forces. Yeah, that sounds about right.

FoolThemAll

It's not black and white for me, I'm not opposed to some regulation and I've already listed some that I find reasonable and even essential. Banning smoking on private property? Not reasonable or essential.

Would you be opposed if the majority decided that restaurant owners must allow smokers?

I find the whole health argument to be an irredeemably flawed justification, but if it's a matter of "I don't see a need for a justification, majority rule is enough", that's a whole 'nother argument. Then I'm interested in where exactly you'd draw the line - what shouldn't be allowed even if it has majority approval? We can probably both agree that slavery shouldn't be put to a vote and that increased funding for a local rec center should be votable... but between those two extremes, where do you draw the line?

Those two situations are hardly equivalent.

Yeah, that's probably the most pragmatic solution for smoke-minded people in states with bans, but I'd prefer that all states respect property rights. And although it's less pragmatic, it's hardly out of the realm of plausibility to fight to overturn these bans.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Infinite_Loser

A smoker refraining from lighting up for an hour isn't going to kill them. On the other hand, a non-smoker forced to be around a smoker for an hour could be potentially fatal. Why doesn't anyone acknowledge this point?

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

FoolThemAll

And certain people wouldn't survive a trip to the peanut butter factory. The solution isn't to tell restaurant owners what to do with their property, it's for those with allergies to avoid these places.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.