Naturally, I’m discussing the merits of such a law as such, and not based on weather you actually agree with it or not, but untill there is nation wide reform in regards to pollution, the allergy argument fails, as does any argument dealing with health…which are dubious to begin with. Speaking politicially moreso than morally.s
This is not to say that if the other problems are addressed and we as a society become more health conscience I would also agree with the banning of smoking…There are still differences between widescale pollution of the environment that harms people by the very fact that they live in the United States, and smoking in a bar that anyone can choose to go to or not, and if not then they aren’t exposed.
Also, there are competing interests between individuals and businesses, in regards to the pollution discussion. For example, is it right for a person to drive a polluting car if that is all they can afford and have access to, v. a large automobile company developing cars that pollute more than is necessary in order to satisfy the status quo that has been making them billions. I would claim the former is acceptable while the latter isn’t, but perhaps this is a little too far off topic.
I might not mind the idea of smoking and non-smoking bars and restaurants, if the rest of us didn’t have to pick up the tab for the the health consequences of it. You see Medicaid and Medicare are financed by public funds. That means our taxes go toward paying for it. So if someone who decides to destroy their lungs receives Medicare or Medicare, then our taxes are being used to pay for their choice.
Allow a comparison. If every biker who decides to ride without a helmit were killed instantly when they were in an accident it wouldn’t cost the rest of us too much. But when some of them become quadriplegics, or cognitively impaired, tax payers have to support them for the rest of their lives. So tax-payers should be allowed a say in the helmit laws. Likewise, smoking laws.
The fact that we pay taxes means that we have an investment in the health practices of others. That should give tax payers a right to be heard on unhealthy practices that place a burden on society.
Imp is right you know. There is no Constitutional means to even assume you have that right, especially considering that the forcible levying of taxes by coercion of law … is loophole legislation.
You have zero investment in my health practices, because under liberty and freedom of democracy, my life is none of your damn business. I’m responsible and accountable for my own life, and unless I give you that authority in writing, my payment of tax dollars means to me, “I paid my dues, now F* off, I’m busy trying to live.”
At the moment you assume otherwise, you are enacting socialism, and liberty and freedom die.
felix
Well, pretty much everything we do involves some risk, be it eating too much or the wrong stuff, driving too fast, not exersizing enough, the surge of popularity in “dangerous sports”…not to mention jobs necessary to society that are dangerous, and a whole gamut of activities in our society that run “undue” risk. Personally, I don’t view healthcare as a commodity but a right, so these arguments really don’t matter to me, as it’s not a matter paying taxes on something as a privledge, but providing a right to everyone. So how much it costs for you to get care is irrelevant.
With that said, I imagine that dying at 45 from lung cancer is less expensive than having a few enduring problems but living to 100, not to mention the fact that smoking brings in more money from taxes than it takes out because of healthcare problems… So it evens up, but I supposs in a commodity based system of healthcare one has the option of being fickle enough to decry people who make choices that could cause them to use more resources…
Thanks all for continuing the conversation despite attempts to derail from personal, political agendas. That’s evident to anyone with an ounce of sense. On second thought, Ill leave the discussion when Imp does a revolution. So far, his ideas show little show considerable ignorance of considerable, available information, both historical and current.
Felix, I can understand your concern. So what’s wrong wth having smokers-only bars? What’s wrong with gaging the amount of CO we breathe from automobiles, which noone wants to ban? What’s wrong with my wanting to call Dr. Kavokian when my life gets unbearable? Whose business is my business anyway if my business does not prevent theirs?
I can’t believe I overlooked this thread! I smoke two packs a day and I can’t stand it when I go into a BAR of all places and can’t smoke while I’m having a beer at 2 am. There are no children around. There are no people around who care enough about their livers to complain about their lungs. It’s ridiculous. I went into a restaurant the other day, specifically asked to be be seated outside on the patio so that I could smoke,( being that I was outside in the open air), only to have a waiter come over and tell me that I can’t smoke anyplace in the entire restaurant. Gimme a break non-smokers. You can’t tell me that a cigarette is doing you any substantial harm. Man up and admit that it’s worse to roll down the car window in a traffic jam than it is to leave it up and breathe cigarette smoke. You’re all just mad because you don’t get anything from the cigarettes like you do the cars or the factories or whatever. It’s just a stupid immature PC power trip that’s a result of our society’s coddling of those who play weak as though a cigarette is really going to give them cancer in the next 5 minutes if they don’t escape it’s horrible death cloud!
Giving a shit about another person’s cigarette is about as petty an act of misguided emotivism as I can think of. Get a grip guys, there are better things to do with your time than obsess about a little smoke. It’s not gonna kill you.
The issue still revolves around the hipocracy of choosing for others what you yourself do on a daily basis. You don’t smoke? Good! Maybe medicare will be saved a few bucks. There ought to be a law that only certain people in certain places should be allowed to breath. After all, letting everyone breath consumes oxygen better reserved for those who deserve it. There isn’t any way to NOT be involved in something deleterous to someone elses health. Prohibition laws do nothing but build resentment toward those laws. After our grand experiment in alcohol prohibition one would think people could take a lesson from history, but that would be too simple.
I’m feeling magnanimous this evening. Perhaps it’s the heady feeling it gave me to abolish Medicaid and Medicare at Imp’s request. Since we no longer have those costly programs to treat you, you may have your own smokers-only bar.
I thought I already made it clear that I DO want to ban CO producing cars. Dr. Kervokian is no longer in the assisted suicide business. You may wish to consult the Hemlock Society for effective means. You may be on your own in the execution stage. Steer clear of Acetominophen as a means of offing yourself. You may survive initially only to go through a slow and painful death due to liver failure. Good luck.
Smears–Of course you can’t stand it when you aren’t permitted to smoke in the bar. You’re addicted man–hello! Don’t blame the waiter. He is probably a smoker too. Just doing his job I suspect.
If you would prefer to open your car window and breathe the fumes–go for it. It would be cheaper than smoking as long as you don’t start going on long trips just to stick your head to smell the fumes.
I rarely get cancer from being exposed to cigarette smoke for periods of 5 minutes or less. But I do get allergy attacks that make it difficult to breathe. You are apparently living on the fun side of the cigarette. You will probably find this hard to believe, but if I never smell cigarette smoke again I will hardly miss it at all.
tentative–
Personally I’m too young to remember prohibition clearly, but from your comments, I take it that it didn’t go well. Don’t you think that if they were to ban drinking alcohol in bars these days it would be bad for business? On the other hand if people were only able to smoke in establishments designed for smokers, that would probably be good for their business, right? One last question. I’m curious about your breathing law idea: who doesn’t deserve to breathe?
FTLOEHAFTW, give it to me tentative, GIVE IT TO ME.
You know I have THE answer for this question.
(No one can ever say tentative isn’t a crafty old man, he laid that trap so well, he probably can’t even tell where it is any longer … [/exit hero_worship.exe])
=D> Thank you, sir. I was born in Marietta, GA., an outgrowth of a cancer known as Atlanta. We poor Southerners only recently acquired a slice of the economic pie, so most of us don’t consider collateral damage very important. On the other hand Ohio’s three Cs, Cleveland, Columbus and Cinncinnati are suffering from economic malaise. They can afford to impose moralistic legislation on any and all.
Is it any wonder that our “Great State of Ohio” continually ranks in the top ten of most corrupt/lease efficient/poverty stricken/unfriendly to business lists?
I think you are making this all up, Ohio is a “progressive” state sir. You’re losing your objectivity. Why in the past decade here in Ohio we have … umm … well … we … uhhhh … and … ummm … maybe … sort of …
ROFL!!! I often feel like the guy in the old song “Please, Mr. Custer, I Don’t Want To Go”. His famous line–“What am I doing here?” Canton, however, doesn’t fit the stereotype of a gene pool gone stagnant. Here, one can get housing according to income, a daily hot meal, a free bag of groceries at least twice a month. But you can’t smoke in a bar.
Actually, while it is true that I’m a bit long in the tooth, prohibition was repealed in a constitutional amendment in 1934, which was a good number of years before I was born. But no, it didn’t go well. Like all prohibition laws, what one claims is right in principle, is only right for “the other guy”. We’re always the exception.
I have no problem promoting a healthier environment, but why not incentive instead of punishment? Why not a law giving tax breaks to establishments willing to ban cigarettes, perfume, or lack of bathing? Let the owners decide which is more economically viable. If you and I wanted to start a bar business, we could weigh the advantages of losing smokers against having a reduced tax rate. We could throw the heavily perfumed women out or not. It would be our choice. ( sort of like the idea of throwing the cologne and perfume crowd into the gutter ).
Can you see the difference? A law that encourages is far more likely to be supported than one that punishes. There will always have to be laws that say “you can’t do that”, but they should cover the barest needs of civilized behavior. Prohibition laws of the type being discussed here aren’t among them.
My “breathing law” was a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm, and even though Mastriani would love to answer, I won’t give him the opening. The point was that there is no limit to prohibition laws in the hands of those who would force us to comply to their view of the world. The content of this discussion has primarily been about restricting smoking, but let me ask, if the anti-abortion people had their way, abortion for any reason would be banned. If your sister is raped and gets pregnant from that violence, do you want complete strangers demanding the right to make decisions whether she can or cannot have that pregnancy terminated?
A smoking ban > abortion ban. Legislated morality is a slippery slope.
).
The point was that there is no limit to prohibition laws in the hands of those who would force us to comply to their view of the world. The content of this discussion has primarily been about restricting smoking, but let me ask, if the anti-abortion people had their way, abortion for any reason would be banned. If your sister is raped and gets pregnant from that violence, do you want complete strangers demanding the right to make decisions whether she can or cannot have that pregnancy terminated?