I don’t know the answer to that, but I’ll quote my Georgia sister who observed as her county went dry’ “They’re trying to legislate us into heaven!”
Nihilistic,
Yours is the sane solution our local paper advocated. It fell on deaf ears.
Mastriani,
Yep, the Cleveland Clinic, one of the best in the world, is shedding its smoker employees. And, yes, lap dancers are marching in the streets with posters about their rights. They won’t win. You can’t do that here!
Imp.,
Violence begets violence–Buddha. The great war, WWI, was touted as the war to end all wars. So why should we still be having them? Why should the 21st centuruy start with a war? Haven’t we learned anything about revenge–a condition that can outlast milennia? Must we do the “last crusade”?
Sawelios,
Yes, when I play my guitar loud enough to pester all neighbors and my cat at inappropriate times, say 4:00 a.m., I deserve to be chided. But there should be some time and place where my musical? exuberance is allowed.
Felix DeKat,
Don’t go. Take your brewsky home to your self-imposed isolationism.
Shouln’t we ban cars that give us more CO to breathe than cigarettes offer?
That is exactly how you can tell this is a moral crusade, and has nothing to do with the fallacy of “protecting people from their own bad habits” …
If you’re a drug addict, companies have to at least “offer” or direct you to services to help with your addiction. Same with alcoholism.
All we hear about is how smokers are addicted, as an extension that is likely associated with some form of depression … yet, where is their fair shake at receiving treatment … ? Didn’t those advertisements teach us that nicotine addiction is equivalent to cocaine addiction? Or was that just a socialist lie to attach a drug like stigma to smoking?
As a morally bankrupt smoker you get a pamphlet telling you all the reasons you should quit, and an 800 number/website address …
Can I call “bullshit” yet?
every crusade a wanted crusade?
-Imp
-Imp
I always could have and often did. But now I can go to any I want and not get sick. I believe that most of these laws are constitutional. Amendment X says:
“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.”
Once smokers ruled the land now non-smokers are gaining the upper hand. It’s all a matter of whose ox is being gored isn’t it?
-Imp
Any law that imposes on the liberties of the people, especially in a prejudicial manner, is unConstitutional. What person does with their own body, is their own business, under the definition of liberty.
Now some are being told “where” they can “what” with their body. Sorry, unConstitutional.
Not meaning this to sound crass, but it will, felix, not every business is there just so you are comfortable.
The liberties of one group of people almost always impose on the rights of another group. When anyone could smoke anywhere at any time they imposed there liberty on my right to clean air. Now my right to clean air is imposed on their liberty to smoke. That’s what I meant by it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
I have never taken any political action on this issue one way or another and I have been approached by groups on both sides. I am the passive happy beneficiary of the political action of the anti-smoking activists. Given that cigarette smoke literally makes me puke, can you reasonably expect me to support another’s right to blow smoke in my face?
Let’s not be ludicrous, no sane person would.
But as stated, it isn’t just the rights of smokers and non-smokers. Individuals who own businesses have the right to run a lawful business in any manner they choose, including creating atmosphere’s for selective clientèle.
Now they no longer have that choice. Not to mention the hypocrisy of non-smokers who run everywhere in fossil fuel engine cars, with all the other cars around them, then complain about the “health problems caused by smokers” … the amount of carbon monoxide coming from the exhaust of any automobile is a hundred times, likely more, greater than any cigarette. Anyone knowledgeable about human physiology knows that hemoglobin will pick up carbon monoxide over oxygen, at a 5 to 1 rate. Any other toxins in the mix are also drawn into the bloodstream at a higher rate because of the carbon monoxide.
Cars emit more amount of toxins, on a continual basis, and everyone who drives in traffic, is sucking up those toxins at a rapacious rate.
Although smoking is not a healthy habit for anyone, the comparison when looked at objectively, isn’t even comparable. But far be it from me to dissuade another from the lies and misrepresentations.
May the socialism reign long, only then will we learn.
A bad peace is worse than any war.
Tacitus
Felix,
Clean air because people can’t smoke in a bar? Then perhaps we ought to outlaw any and all internal combustion engines and do it NOW. After all, the emissions from vehicles dirty the air. And we need to cut down ALL coniferous trees immediately! That nice piney smell? That smell is hydrocarbons polluting the air you breath! That girl sitting at the bar? The one you would like to…errr, know better? She is drenched in perfume that is knocking allergy sufferers down right and left. The bar owner should protect the health of his patrons by throwing her out into the street. If we want to live by principles then let’s at least be consistent. We want you healthy and comfortable!
I like the idea of outlawing the internal combustion engines immediately. Why screw around. Leave the trees alone, in fact let’s plant more. Perfume runs the gammut from fragrant to revolting, but it doesn’t make me sick, so don’t worry. I appreciate you looking out for me. At least the air here at ILP is clear.
Why must this law have to have been passed by people who are liberal. Everyone that I associate with is extremely liberal, and none of them agree with this law. There is a current of libertarianism running through liberalism which is often missed.,It’s equally as probable that the people who would go for this law are the conservative uptight type. But, honestly, I don’t think this law runs down party lines, it’s more a matter of smokers v. non-smokers, and sensitive v. not sensitive. Obviously it’s going to be spun by the right into something about rights, but I know few socialists/communists/liberals who aren’t libertarian when it comes to personal liberty.
So, while the right might think it’s a matter of a business’s right to running their business how they want, the left see’s it as a matter of personal liberty, with no connection to business. I wonder which one has more to do with liberty, business or individuals…
It’s a health issue.
No it’s not, everyone just thinks it is. Look up the end all be all of Second hand smoke Studies, an EPA meta-study done in 1993, and you’ll find that out of the 30 studies that they examined, there was no statistical difference between people exposed to second hand smoke and people that were not.
Those exposed died 12.5 in a million from lung cancer, and 10 deaths per million for those not exposed.
So I should ignore the fact that cigarette smoke causes me severe allergic reaction that leads to reactive airway disease? It will cause permanent pulmonary damage if allowed to persist.
You haven’t addressed asthma which is exacerbated in the presence of cigarette smoke and leads to acute life-threatening crises, COPD and emphesema. It has nothing to do with morality for me. I see the affects of it every day. Spouses who smoke and make their partners sick. Parents who smoke and make their children sick. It’s a health issue.
Besides it hasn’t hurt the business of bars and reastaurants. People still want to get out to eat and drink.
My mother is allergic to strawberries, shall we ban strawberries in all public places so that she can be safe? No, it’s her responsibility to make sure that she does not make contact with them, and to stay away from places that serve them, and places where she could be exposed. How about foods produced on machines that also process peanut items…Shall we ban them?..No, once again, it is the person who is allergic to peanut’s responsibilty to avoid it…So why should we have a double standard in regard to people being “allergic”(i use this loosely) to cigarette smoke, is it not their responsiblity to avoid it, just as in every other case of allergins?
As for Asthema, this argument is dubious…if we as a society cared about such things, we would not pollute the enviornment, thus reducing cases of asthema and reducing the hardship upon people with it. You cannot cry foul in one case where asthema can be inflamed, and then allow all others…Because if you do, then the “Asthema argument” isn’t why you banned smoking, but simply a smoke screen to justify what otherwise would be ridiculous.
As for business’s losing patronage, I already said this is more a matter of personal liberty rather than business rights, for me. I could give a fuck if a wealthy bar owner loses a few bucks.
This is for you and Ierrellus
Which constitution? State or Federal?
As long as a majority voted it in to a law. Its far different then a minority voting it into law, which public leaders are.
Even if the vast majority of the public are idiots our country is supposed to follow the majority. You all piss and moan about minorities and special rights groups when they get things enacted to laws, now you are pissing and moaning when the majority speaks and wins? For crying out loud, do you want majority rule or minority rule?
First, if you are addressing your comments to me I haven’t banned anyone from doing anything. I am merely discussing the merits and liabilites of anti-smoking laws.
Allergies that are causes by ingesting substances are different then those that where the allergens are air-born. Obviously food allegies can be controlled by avoiding the allergenic foods. Just as obviously, air born allergies are more difficult to avoid since smokers and non-smokers share air.
Smoking is just one instance of a larger problem. I agree it makes little sense to let factories and automobiles, lawnmowers, etc. and such pollute and ban smoking. I am all for banning other sources of pollution from fouling the air. No inconstency there.