Fourtyrulz

I can't believe people have ignored this. It makes the pro-smoking argument look rediculous while giving me a good laugh at the same time , it also helps that I completely agree with your sarcasm. Smoking kills you....period. If you want to smoke, I shouldn't have to be forced to take part in it just because we are in the same establishment.

On a side note: Nothing makes me happier than to look out of my dorm window on a windchill-below-zero Iowa winter day where it's snowing and Johnny Smokesalot is outside freezing his ass off to feed his addiction, all the while I'm sitting in my heated room lying in bed reading a book. Someone should fence them off and put a sign out front like a zoo exhibit, "Smokers", "Look mommy! Don't they know it's freezing ass cold outside?" "Yes hun, but they have to get their hourly fix of nicotene."

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

filtherton

Another variation is:
My gas taxes are a "voluntary" tax that local, state AND federal governments cannot live without. Therefore, they have no right to dictate to me where and when I may drive.

shakran

And lets not forget that we pay property taxes too, and if we give the government any money for something they can't tell us what to do with it. Human sacrifices on my lawn tonight at 8! Bring the whole family, the government can't touch us!

ObieX

One could just as easily make the case that bars serving alcohol should be banned because afterwards people have to get home from wherever they are. In most cases that means getting into a car and driving to that home. This is a huge problem public safety wise, therefore we should ban anyone from drinking alcohol except while in their own home, and anyone caught driving with any alcohol in their system whatsoever should have their license revoked. The current system of drunk driving punishment obviously isnt working (like non-smoking areas) so why not ban drinking all together in public areas? Why should *i* have to pay for your inability to drink responsibly by having to deal with you driving with alcohol in your system and possibly slamming into me/my family/my car/my home. If you insist on drinking in public areas you should be forced outdoors, often into the freezing cold weather and find a dark alley someplace out of view of the public, with your bottle/can in a brown paper bag so that your "problem" doesnt effect my senses. You may then walk home in the frigid weather knowing your uncontrollable urge to indulge has been satisfied.

Also i think that the comparison to over weight people and fatty foods is quite good. We pay as a society by the MASSIVE (no pun intended) medical costs that are pushed upon us as citizens - which means more hours of forced labor to pay for this (higher taxes = less $ to feed myself, therefore i need to work that extra hour, or pick up that extra job). It could also mean less money spent where it may otherwise be put to good use, like fixing those pot-holes or actually funding the education system.

Hey, how about banning those black people in public places too, their hair is greasy, so i could slip and fall from their jerry curl juice and break my neck. They are also very hostile and unpredictable, you never know when they'll revert to their animalistic ways and punch someone out who is waiting in line for pizza.

While we're at it we should ban all forms of motorized transportation too, the businesses may suffer cuz people cant get to work, but who cares, cuz all that smog is giving our children cancer and polluting our air/land/waters. We must remove all cars from the road for public safety, imagine all the accidents that would be prevented, all the medical costs prevented, all the deaths to wildlife (aka roadkill) that can be prevented, all the money that could be saved on not paving roads, and law enforcement for speedy and wreckless drivers..

Just for the record I'm not a smoker, i also think i've been playing Jennifer Government for too long. I was a smoker for many years but have not been smoking cigarettes for quite a number of years now. In my opinion less government involvement is needed in many areas, this area is a good start. People always come forth with some remark requesting someone to point out the last time they were oppressed by the government, or interfered with by the government - to that i can only say, what can you name that ISN'T regulated by the government these days. Hell i cant even retile my bathroom without getting a permit.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Manx

Except it is. The vast majority of drivers are not actively driving drunk. If most drivers were driving drunk, then you would be correct in claiming the system isn't working.

ObieX

I haven't noticed the problem getting much better. People are still getting pulled over and testing positive. Rehab centers are still jam-packed full of people forced there by the state and local governments because they were discovered with a blood-alcohol content above the legal limit. People are still slamming into other people while driving drunk and wiping out entire families with one foul swoop. People are still getting ripped in bars and picking fights with random joe schmoe, knocking his teeth out and beating him senseless due to an inability to inhibit their actions under the influence. The blood-alcohol content limits in many states are constantly being lowered because people are not getting the message and are continuing this behavior, yet no matter how low they make it the problem never goes away. You can't ban drinking all together, we already tried that. For one those "crazy christians" wouldnt be able to practice their sacrament and would throw a fit. That christian lobby seems just as strong, if not stronger than the tobacco lobby, maybe we should badmouth them too. And dont forget the incense they use at those churches/temples/mosques/etc.. those are damaging to all the parishioners/worshipers, how dare that priest/rabbi/mullah wave their incense around in a building full of loyal parishioners and followers and give them a risk of cancer?! If you ban one smoke you must ban them all..? It worked for marijuana, right? No one smokes that evil stigmatized plant anymore! Oh, wait...

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Charlatan

...................

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Manx

Don't take this the wrong way, but your responses here have been borderline hysterical. Stop jumping out to such extremes in your comparisons.

As I said - if something around 9 out of every 10 drivers were driving drunk that would be comparable to the percentage of smoking bars, pre-ban. Since something less than 1 out of every 10 drivers drive drunk (it's probably more like .000001), your comparison is absurd.

flstf

My biggest objection to these sorts of bans is that I fear the government is getting too intrusive into our lives. People make a lot of unsafe lifestyle choices and the government should regulate our activities as little as possible.

When you decide to engage in an unhealthy activity like freguenting a smoke filled tavern the government should not deny you the right to do so. No one is forcing you to go inside an establishment where the consumption of legal tobacco products like cigarettes, pipes, and cigars is permitted by the owner.

IMHO the government should stay out of it and let customers vote with their feet to decide which places get their business.
I don't understand why the fact that an establishment that permits smoking should bother a non-smoker since they can easily choose to go elsewhere. Many tavern owners etc.. wish to permit smoking and many people desire to go there. The government should not deny these establishments from permitting the consumption of legal tobacco products.

Also when marijuana is legalized the consumption of those products should be allowed as well.

flstf

I read an article recently that claimed that 9% of drivers are now talking on cell phones (up from 4%). It has been my experience that your chances of getting nailed by one of these is far greater than the drinkers. I wonder if a cell phone/driving ban is next.

ObieX

My responses have been phrased the way they have been for many reasons, I'm well aware of their out-landishness and absurdity, but I've been trying to make quite a few points in a very limited amount of wording, so as to not go into a 10 page essay on the extreme interference of government in this day and age (among other things). However, while my points may seem absurd they attempt to delve into many layers and levels of society/current or past societal "norms"/basic freedoms/the meaning of America/definition of liberty/the purpose of government and many other parts of my thought process on this (and other topics of some relation) that would, otherwise, be nearly impossible to put into words. To put forth a proper represention of my point of view, some sarcasm and pushing at nerves is often required. Afterall, we are talking about laws (force) and loss of freedoms. I take both of those subjects very seriously, and will defend my right to liberty in any form with extreme prejudice if required. However since this is a message board, and words can very easily be poo-pooed away with little thought, a little emotional involvement by the reader is often required to get a point to sink in.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Charlatan

These laws are already in effect in some areas...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

guthmund

I'm a big fan of "live and let live" and "mind my own fucking business," but if there was to be a referendum on smoking...

I could stand behind a public smoking ban, if there were exceptions that allowed bars and restaurants to allow smoking if they choose.

I don't buy into smoking sections and non-smoking sections. I think that if a bar or restaurant chooses to allow smoking then the whole place should be a smoking section. If you don't care to be around smokers, they're not forcing you out into the cold, just to another bar or restaurant.

I think that would solve the majority of the public's concerns and not trample too much on the smokers. Public health should certainly be considered, however, you shouldn't have to ostracize a segment of the population to do it.

I also really hate that 'smokers clog up healthcare' argument. Yes, it takes a lot to care for a smoker, but it also takes a bit to care for careless drivers, victims of careless drivers, extreme sports fanatics, hypochondriacs, insurance abusers, old people looking for attention, alcoholics and the overly concerned parents who bring in little Jimmy everytime he coughs funny.

We seem to live in an 'all or nothing' society. So, unless your also willing to ban driving, all extreme sports, old people, alcoholics and limit the number of hospital visits for the hypochondriacs, insurance abusers and obessesive compulsive parents, we should stop singling out the smokers.

When I was younger I did a lot of stupid shit that sent me to the doctor on more than one occasion. I knew better, but I did it anyway. Didn't have any insurance either...

Nobody lives 'the' perfect life. We all do some remarkably stupid stuff both to ourselves and to others. Before we get up on the soapbox and start preaching to the smokers, maybe we should take a glance in the mirror.

Just a suggestion. Don't mind me. Carry on.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Charlatan

ObieX... No one is saying you cannot smoke. They are just saying you can't smoke in a public place where it will effect others.

As others have pointed out, bars, while privately owned are subject to all sorts of laws...

Bars may nor serve alcohol to minors for example.
Some bars may not serve alcohol between certain hours.
Some are abligated to be completely closed during others.
All bars are located only where zoning permits them (i.e. commerical zoning, etc.)


The smoking law is just another one of these regulations. This does not impinge upon your right to smoke. Puff away until you heart is content.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

cyrnel

I think it's been said already, but the original intent was to protect workers, not patrons. I worked in Cupertino CA when early City non-smoking ordinances went into effect. There were large influences from food-service groups and office workers who, pre-ban, were forced to accept 2nd-hand smoke as part of the work environment. I didn't pay attention to statistics but my 18hr deadline days sure went more smoothly after the smoking stopped.

daswig

I'm reminded of the case in Maryland not too long ago where somebody was arrested for smoking in their apartment, because the smoke could get into the "public areas" of the building when the apartment door was opened....ie the hallway. And no, I'm not joking.

Health Nazis are just that...

retsuki03

Also on the agenda of curbing individual freedoms in Austin are checkpoints stationed thoughout the city at intersections doing.... can you guess?

Every driver wanting to pass through the intersection would be subject to a Breathalyzer test. It is another idea I don't agree with.

Your analogy is excellent as far as the public safety concerns arguement. I would wager that more people die as a result of the alcohol bars serve than second-hand smoke patrons of bars inhale.

With that logic in mind, it shows the transparency of the motive behind this referendum. The crybabies don't like to deal with smoke. They are trying to ban it so they don't have to put up with it. It is not a public health concern at all. You will not get cancer from second-hand smoke at a bar. They could have an arguement that the workers of the bar, with more prolonged exposure to smoke, could develop health problems. My counter would be- they can work somewhere else.


OFF TOPIC:
All this nonsense annoys me. While driving home from work today I heard a story about a boy who jumped off a parking garage and fell 80 ft. His parents are suing the city of Orlando for "making little effort to correct a potential deadly risk."

It is absolutely outrageous. If you kid jumps off a fucking building that makes him suicidal or stupid. Either way, it isn't the city of Orlando's fault. Are tall buildings a public safety concern now? Even if we try and idiotproof everything, the morons will find a way to hurt themselves.

james t kirk

Till it's your father laying in the hospital bed dying of lung cancer. Sure, he smoked. Yep, he should have known better, but he's still your dad and you both know that he's finished even if he did quit 12 years ago.

james t kirk

The above is why i have never smoked a day in my life.

And why I am all in favour of banning the fucking things in public, never mind just restaurants and bars.

You want to smoke, do it on private property as far as I am concerned.

Double, nay quadruple the taxes on them. Make them cost 50 bucks a pack for all I care.

retsuki03

You don't care because you don't smoke. You are in the majority, and want to oppress the minority. Do you drink alcohol? Would you support an extra $50 tax on beer? You know, if I didn't drink beer, what reason would I have to oppose it.

It seems selfish to me.

How about make SUV's cost 4x as much because they are hard for me to see over and pose risks to MY driving safety (think of all the extra tax money!). Don't I have the right to see over SUVs while driving on public roads (that is in the constitution, right?). If they want to drive those, they should do it on PRIVATE roads.

Plus, they burn way too much gas and are polluting the air. Air I breathe. If you want to drive your SUV, do it without spewing toxic chemicals into MY atmosphere. They are PUBLIC roads right? What right do these damn SUV drivers have to pollute my atmosphere. Besides, they are way more likely to flip over than any other vehicle. Do these people have a death wish? Lets ban SUV's for their safety and our own. Hell, we need to ban cars altogether. All this global warming is going to kill the cute little penguins.

Why do I care, I walk to work. It won't affect me.

How people can claim they have the right to go to a bar and legislate that it be smokefree is astounding to me. I thought we had a constitution in this country.

Fourtyrulz

Hmmm, nothing in the preamble...some stuff about a king...nothing in the first seven articles...wait here's something "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." So the states CAN decide wether or not to ban smoking!

The problem with having a written constitution is that most people choose not to read it. The way I see things, unti cigarettes are an illegal schedule I drug, defined as "drugs considered to have a potential for abuse, and no recognized medical use in treatment in the US", I will keep on smacking myself in the face anytime someone says they have a "right" to smoke.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

splck

I'm happy this progressive legislation is being contemplated by the fine folks of Austin despite the bleatings of the pro-smoking crowd.

As far as I'm concerned it's about the workers not the patrons.
Complain away smokers....your day has come.

__________________
nice line eh?

filtherton

Was the person convicted? Was their smoke stinking up the public areas of the apartment?

Not those who favor a smoking ban are "health nazis". Not all smokers are "smoke nazis". Though it's amazing how quickly talk of a smoking ban turns the average smoker into a libertarian.

I think i hear the smallest violin playing for the oppressed minority that is the american smoker. I hope you don't mind, but you have to share the song with the drip coffee drinkers who have to wait in line behind the latte drinkers for their morning coffee.

Irony.

Sounds good to me, too.

Welcome to america. Unfortunately, the "rights" of smokers didn't seem to be a priority to anyone while the constitution was being written.

IC3

Here's my take on it, Banning smoking in public facility's is fine with me except for bars/clubs..The majority of people who attend bars/clubs smoke and the numbers show it, Every bar/club in my city is struggling with this new law, Although last time i was at my buddy's work (Doormen at a strip club) they had a smoking room which was a glass room with ventilation. I was talking to the owner of the club and he was saying the smoking ban doesn't take full effect until 2006 or 07..Then there is absolutly no smoking anywhere in the club.

This ban doesn't bother me much as i do not attend bars/clubs like i use too, But it bugs me that bars/clubs are now struggling in an industry that was always booming because of somebody who is probably a non smoker thinks this is what's best...Of course non smokers are going to agree and smokers are gonna think it's bullshit. I'm a smoker and have no problem with smoking outside..I actually prefer to smoke outside.

Bars do have ventilation systems for the smoke and IMO they do a pretty good job, Some better than others..Why not make bars/clubs up to code with the ventilation systems that have lower class ones, Why don't the non smokers open up thier own "Smoke Free Bars"?? Because they wouldn't survive, That's why..Look at the current bars, I bet alot of small bar owners are gonna be closing shop because of this and that sucks.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

Charlatan

kirk... this is why I said I had a hard time... I can have sympathy on individual cases... it is just hard to justify the faceless smoker who makes no effort to quit.

As I said when he died, I am truly sorry for your loss...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Charlatan

By the way... bring on the higher taxes for Urban dwellers with SUVs... I can see a need for them in a rural setting but in the city? No need.

Fuck your personal freedoms... think of the greater good for change.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

RangerDick

At the time this happened, I was living in Montgomery County, Md (Germantown) and this was big news locally. The County subsequently retracted the law under which the dirty dirty smoker was arrested after receiving much derision for its lunacy.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=566

This simply begs the question, where will it end? I saw a bit on the new this weekend that the anti-smoking lobbyists are pushing to get a special rating for movies that show people smoking.

filtherton

It will go one until the anti-smoking lobbyist push too far. Then it will stop. Right now i imagine most nonsmokers favor a smoking ban. I don't know how many nonsmokers care about movie ratings.

IC3

Why am i not surprised!

Like i said above, If these people are so hell bent on making everything non smoking, And taking it even further to make movies have a special rating just so they can smile knowing that they got thier way..That's fine with me, But the minute somebody walks up and stands beside me outside and tells me to put my cigg out or in some way acts like i am bothering them, I will bend over and they can place thier lips on my ass.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

Lebell

I do not smoke and never have.

I personally hate smoking and will be the first to complain if they're are smokers smoking in the non-smoking section of a restaurant.

But I also think that if a business wants to allow smoking, that's their business and it's mine if I want to patronize them or not.

I am not for allowing governments or businesses to intrude on the rights of smokers for one simple reason; it sets bad precedent. For the same reason I would support an interpretation of the constitution that made a persons private sex life sacrosanct and businesses incapable of firing individuals for the things they say and do outside of work that are not illegal.

In otherwords, unless there is an overwhelming reason to restrict the rights of the individual, I am generally for erring on the side of the individual and their personal rights.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mojo_PeiPei

Smoking effects more then the smoker though, It's actually more harmful to people around the smoker then the person actually inhaling the cigarette. I would be very upset if people down the line tried to turn this into a constitutional/personal rights thing.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Lebell

Of course it does...that's why I reserve the right whether or not to patronize an establishment that allows it.

The "it affects more people" argument can always be applied.

For example, the sale of 'sex toys' affects more than just the individual. It encourages a degredation of morals that affects the whole community.

Motor cycle helmet laws are good because the cost of accidents involving those who don't wear them is higher than those who do, affecting everyone's insurance premiums.

Company's that ban employees from drinking in their own time do so because the cost of alcoholism affects the entire company's profits.

And so on and so on.

But what I see is a disturbing trend to not care about these sorts of incursions into personal liberty because they don't affect you personally.

But if we wait until they DO affect us personally, it will be too late, IMO because the precedent is set.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

daswig

Wait, I thought you were a "progressive"....if you're a "progressive", then why would you support a regressive tax measure? That's what cigarette "sin taxes" are...because which socio-economic class smokes the most?

RangerDick

I'd be interested to see evidence that cigarette smoking has more of a negative effect on bystanders than the actual smoker him/herself.

The smokestack next to my hellhole studio apartment on the Upper East Side affects more than the power company itself. Noise and emissions from that bloody place definitely aren't making me healthier. Everything affects everything. Legislating our way to living in a "sterile bubble environment" is not the answer. Agreed, there has to be a middle ground. That is the core of the issue I guess.

Fourtyrulz

Victor Frankl once said that the Statue of Liberty on the East coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West. What good are rights if they are without regard to society as a whole?

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

retsuki03

Can you really unequivocally state there is "no need?"

My mother is a photographer in the "rural setting" of Houston. Her equipment won't fit in a car. You must have really thought hard on that one. Damn, can you think of anything else you think people don't have a need for? Perhaps we should up the taxes on everything you can think of.
You ideas remind me of the restrictive societies of the Taliban. I am thinking of the greater good- Freedom.
I think it is right next to the "rights" of nonsmokers.

filtherton

Well, the nonsmokers are the majority, and in our country we like to pretend that the majority rules, as long as the majority doesn't violate the rights of the minority. Since there is no mention of smoking in the constitution, smoking isn't a right. At least it isn't the kind of right that can't be legally taken away by the majority.

Unless you happen to be rich, the privilege of the few is very often trumped by the desires of the majority.

shakran

it's pretty simple here. Your rights do not eclipse my rights. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to break in to my house and shout your message in my ear at 3am, because that would trump MY rights.

You have the right to smoke all you want as long as you're not poisoning me while you do it. You smoke near me, you're poisoning me.

There's nothing wrong with a smoking ban, and everything right. If you want to kill yourself, go right ahead, but do it in your own house or car.

Oh and by the way it's not just an issue of "well you can choose not to patronize those restaurants if you don't like smoking"

There's the health of the staff to consider. They don't have that choice.

RangerDick

To be fair, although second hand smoke may be unpleasant and irritate existing conditions (asthma, etc), there is still much debate as to the actual long term health effects of exposure to second hand smoke.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/...000_0000_ep_01

Charlatan

Feel free to smoke under your burka...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke