Prohibition Returns!

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Cheese, who are you talking to? As I said, I don't smoke, so I don't know who you're talking to when you say "your type".

If we want to get into the discussion of socialized medicine (medicare/caid), well, then...that's a reeeeeally slippery slope. Okay, you want to prohibit people from smoking because it's unhealthy and the taxpayers might have to pay for their resultant medical treatment. Fine. But shouldn't you also be forced to stop drinking (which can damage the liver and lead to real health problems), and shouldn't we outlaw fatty, greasy, high-cholesterol food, while at the same time forcing people to go to the gym? After all, heart disease is the #1 killer in this country. So if we're going to defend smoking bans by bringing up socialized medicine, then I gotta ask: do you support a Big Mac ban too? Do you support forced calisthenics, Mao-style? Because all of those things would make people healthier and less dependent on socialized medicine. Yes, smoking kills, but so do a whole score of other things...we gonna outlaw 'em all?
 
Evan! said:
Oh, same here. There are plenty of places that I go where I wish they wouldn't allow smoking. But here's the rub: did you ever, at any point, do anything about it prior to the ban?


Nope, sure didn't. It didn't bother me that much. Just was part of going there. *shrug* Just like it better now. I am of the same opinion that since it is a legal substance, the government should not tell us where we can or can not smoke, BUT I am ALSO of the mind that my bad habbit should NOT inconvienence ANY OTHER person with the exact same rights as myself.
Yes I have the right to smoke and I do, No I do not have the right to subject anyone else to it. Can they go somewhere else? Yes... should they have to...No Consensual sex among adults is perfectly legal, but there are laws in place that need to be there(due to the state of our contry....) that prevent people from just shagging on any park bench they can find. They are not banning sex, they are just banning it in places where it could offend or even injur (think mental anguish...children.....) someone else who was walking down the street. I have yet to see a No smoking in public streets law......so the ban should be taken with a grain of salt.


Evan! said:
...you're a reasonably, nice dude...
LOL... what is with the comma? *grin* It is ok you are a reasonably, nice dude too. ;)
 
Cheese you keep raising examples of harm being caused to others. Thalidimide will hurt the baby. Doesn't fit with the libertarian priciple. Same with the lead paint. I used lead paint on my tractor, but I should be prevented from using it on kid's toys.

As far as health care... well, there are a few arguments for that. Is it more expensive to treat a person who dies at 50 from lung cancer or a person who dies at 85 from natural causes? Diabetes, hip replacements, drug therapies, etc. Lung cancer is damn quick and smokers pay a lot in taxes. Then again, if we're talking about chronic illnesses, lung cancer is low on the list of major killers. Let's talk cardiovascular diseases. Start at the top if you want to eliminate behaviours that cause chronic illness. Would you opposed legislation that forces you to maintain a healthy weight and cholesterol level? I think I'd rather die young.
 
Well, Smokers, here's the next rub you need to look into:

Many states are deciding on whether or not an employer can terminate you for smoking. May states have already passed the law.

If you don't like this rule, move to another state. If you want to smoke in a bar and your state doesn't allow it, move to another state. Move to Canada if you're still not satisfied.
 
Fingers said:
Cheese you keep raising examples of harm being caused to others. Thalidimide will hurt the baby. Doesn't fit with the libertarian priciple. Same with the lead paint. I used lead paint on my tractor, but I should be prevented from using it on kid's toys.

Second hand smoke causes harm to others.

As far as health care... well, there are a few arguments for that. Is it more expensive to treat a person who dies at 50 from lung cancer or a person who dies at 85 from natural causes? Diabetes, hip replacements, drug therapies, etc. Lung cancer is damn quick and smokers pay a lot in taxes.

Lung cancer is quick?

http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/cancer/5_year.html

It's continual treatment. Hops replacements are cheap. Even bypasses are cheap. Drug therapies are cheap compared to chemo.
 
Cheesefood said:
Move to Canada if you're still not satisfied.

We'll take your gay people and dope smokers too! Lots of room for everybody up here. We're a pretty happy lot.
 
:off:
Wow 165 posts and all good substantive arguments with no trolling or outright instances of stupidity (except maybe for cheese admitting to smoking pot while working in a hospital in a single post:D. I'm sure that was all hypothetical wink wink)
I really need to tear myself away from this thread and get back to work.
Just wanted to say I respect you all.
Jeremy
 
This argument is getting tired, so I'm putting it to bed. And, just so y'all know, I don't take any disrespect from this thread for any of you. It was a good healthy discourse until now, but I'm starting to get riled up and no longer have the urge to fight it out.

I'll state my point one last time, in hopes that someone (anyone) will see that I'm not trying to kill you and your kids with my smoke.

All I'm asking for is freedom of choice, and equality. The basics our nation was founded upon. I support your right not to smoke. I support your right to have places where smoking is not allowed. I am not trying to force my smoke on you, and I respectfully ask the same courtesy in return.

Smoking ban regulation is plain bigotry right in the definition. Your group is attempting to force its will upon me with malice for doing something that is otherwise perfectly legal to do.

And before someone else brings up another straw man argument, I'll toss it down right now. Wanking off is not illegal, yet is not legal to do in public. While I enjoy the ability to sit in a bar or walk down the street without seeing someone smack his meat around, I don't necessarily support a ban on the behavior. I would not go asking the government to shut down bars that allow wankers. I would choose NOT to frequent those establishments, or I would petition the owner to rethink their policy on wanking on premesis. I would consider starting my own wank-free facility where people who do not want wanking going on can sit in peace without the threat of a random wank-by. However, persecution of people who do a perfectly legal activity is absolutely insane.

If you don't like it, make it illegal all around. If I can't buy a smoke, I can't smoke near you. But don't tell me I can smoke, then run around crying because I do it. We are all equals and need to support a solution that allows everyone to be happy, not just you.

Viva la revolution!!!!!!
 
Cheesefood said:
Second hand smoke causes harm to others.

Oh, for Jeebus' sake, Cheese. Didn't you read my main argument? I said it in a couple of different posts in a few different ways.

Yes, second hand smoke causes harm. Eliminate that. Problem solved. Forcing a single solution that punishes someone and ignoring solutions don't punish is what I object to.

I'm not supporting tobacco use here, I'm supporting free choice. I don't smoke but I don't want inflict my opinions on others. I like the education campaigns and aids to quit much more than the punishments. I certainly wouldn't complain about paying for medical treatments to force people to modify behaviors. Remember that in Canada you have no choice but to participate in the public health. In light of that, you can't use public health costs to modify behaviour.
 
Fingers said:
We'll take your gay people and dope smokers too! Lots of room for everybody up here. We're a pretty happy lot.

Awesome parting shot! If I wanted to get more fired up and continue the argument, this would just be fuel for my fire. In the end, I think it's funny and hopefully people reading it will get what you're saying.
 
jezter6 said:
In the end, this has nothing to do with smoking. It has to do with equality. I could care less if I smoked or not, I do not like the government telling me I cannot engage in a perfectly legal activity based on bull*.

Your right to smoke ends when it meets my right to breath clean air. You are free to smoke - outside, in your car, in your home. But you don't have the right to expose me to it, because I don't want to get sick and I don't want my children getting sick.

Clean indoor air laws are a reasonable response to a confirmed health threat. The inconvenience to smokers is minor compared to the protection they offer non-smokers. Its a compromise - just what democracy is designed to achieve.

These days, even a majority of smokers support smoke-free bars, restaurants, and workplaces.


jezter6 said:
If smoking is SOOOOOOOOO bad, outlaw it right out. Make it illegal and stop production.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. And then what's next - alcohol?

The world would be a much better place without tobacco. Its deadly poison and highly addictive. Over 400,000 people die every year from diseases caused by cigarettes. For every person who dies, at least 20 people live with a disabling disease caused by smoking, like cancer, heart disease, stroke, and bronchitis. Second hand smoke even kills tens of thousands of people every year who have neversmoked. And this is just in the U.S., where smoking rates are low.

Despite all this, I don't think a prohibition on tobacco use is good public policy. Better to tax smokers so they pay their fair share of the burden their smoking causes (something like $7 per pack), make them smoke away from the rest of us, offer help to those that want to stop, and try to prevent kids from starting.
 
jezter6 said:
I'll toss it down right now. Wanking off is not illegal, yet is not legal to do in public.
You can't bring up wanking and expect it to end a discussion around here:D
Your example intended to stop hypothetical discussions brings up the perfect one, though.
Imagine enough public wankers that the bars need their money to survive. It would really only take one in any bar to ruin your beer. Now you can't go to any bars at all. But, you won't have to waste any more money at the adult shop.
Actually, the more I think of it, the more I'm really thinking that public self pleasuring is not such a bad idea.
Oooh gotta go now.
 
My bar patronage has gone up 300% since the smoking laws went into effect here in AZ. I'm in one now.

And let's be clear. It's not a ban, its a law. It has a defined area much in the same way that it's against the law to drive on the wrong side of the street. The answer is not to ban driving and no one puts up a fuss about limiting their rights to go where they please.

Frankly, it's sad that it came to a referendum, but why would any movement limit itself in any legal means of enacting a change. Would you have the same admonishment to the Civil Rights movement if they were able get things done via referendum? Regardless, it probably wouldn't happen in my lifetime without it and to be honest, I have a self interest in getting things done in my lifetime.

For every one smoker that tells me that they respect my rights, I have 9 blowing smoke in my face. Back in the day when restaurant smoking was acceptable, if you asked someone not to smoke next to you, you might get some cooperation or you might get 3 or 4 more dudes smoking just to piss you off.
 
I have really enjoyed the topic and retorts. I have to say I really enjoy this group of people and would love to drink and argue with any one of you, and by argue I mean the true definition not the one sided kind. As passionate as everyone is in their stance I am truly amazed the thread hasn't gotten out of hand like it would other places. I think this is a true testament to everyone on here that you/we/us are a swell bunch.
 
jezter6 said:
All I'm asking for is freedom of choice, and equality. The basics our nation was founded upon. I support your right not to smoke. I support your right to have places where smoking is not allowed. I am not trying to force my smoke on you, and I respectfully ask the same courtesy in return.

I certainly respect your opinions and I share your belief in freedom of choice and equality. And I think you make some good points.

The reality is that lines have to be drawn when what one person wants to do causes harm to another person. Making smokers smoke away from non-smokers is one of those lines.

It sucks, I know. I was a smoker for a long time and it pissed me off when I couldn't smoke someplace.

Even though I fully support clean indoor air laws, I do think smokers are being stigmatized too strongly in the U.S., and I don't like that. Smokers are not dumb, and they shouldn't be treated like criminals. I think this is a big part of why smokers get so upset over smokefree laws.

Anyway, I'm outta here...
 
I personally hate smelling like smoke and don't feel I should have to in public anywhere (I respect an establishments right to run their business as the see fit though, and let the patrons decide). In college, there was no smoking inside anywhere. So, what happens? You get everyone that smokes, smoking in the doorways where I "have" to go. Now, I wouldn't have minded a smoking break room where I didn't have to smell it at all (since I wouldn't have been in the room), but they just moved the smokers everyone was complaining about to right in front of where everyone has to enter the building. I see no logic in this plan, nor did they do anything but piss off everyone (me included who felt they had the right to smoke, just not where I am going to stink). Now it is no tobacco anywhere on the campus, even the dorms. That's right, they have now punished the spitters who do only affect themselves (except for the occasional spilled/drank spittoon, lol). I mean thinking something is gross doesn't count as a violation of my rights, but smelling it is. I mean why did I bother to do my laundry, or shower in college if I was just going to smell like an ashtray after a nice clean shower and heading to my first class.
 
brloomis said:
I certainly respect your opinions and I share your belief in freedom of choice and equality. And I think you make some good points.

The reality is that lines have to be drawn when what one person wants to do causes harm to another person. Making smokers smoke away from non-smokers is one of those lines.

It sucks, I know. I was a smoker for a long time and it pissed me off when I couldn't smoke someplace.

Even though I fully support clean indoor air laws, I do think smokers are being stigmatized too strongly in the U.S., and I don't like that. Smokers are not dumb, and they shouldn't be treated like criminals. I think this is a big part of why smokers get so upset over smokefree laws.

Anyway, I'm outta here...

I agree, I used to smoke. I have been rid of that habit for a year now. Just the smell turns my stomach now, and the smoke causes me to become all stuffed up.

I agree also that there seems to be more "brow beating" in regards to smoking.
The only thing that really Pi#@es me off is when I see people smoking in a car with thier kids in it.
I mean if you want to kill yourself, have at it, but protect your kids.
That also goes for people playing music too loud in the car and damaging the kids ears.
But hey, those are just my little pet peeves, that and people that cant spell...like me, I cant spell. I CANT stand myself.:D
Its all those Nouns, Verbs, Pro Nouns and Pro Verbs...........
 
Cheesefood said:
My tax dollars have to pay your mother's medicare bills because she has cancer from smoking. It's your mom: you pay her damned bills. Cancer care costs can exceed one million per patient. You pay that and get her off Medicare.

But no, my taxes are paying for your mom and your poor cousin who can't afford insurance. They're paying for your poor nephew's asthma medication. Your grandpa's respirator.

Tobacco smoke kills people. It's a toxic poison cloud that causes a slow agonizing and expensive death. It's not like a heart attack where you're going to have 30 minutes of active death. It's a terrible disease that eats your organs, puts your family through hell and causes you to drain your savings in hopes of seeing one more of your kids birthday parties.


I'm not arguing your view on smoking as we all know it is a nasty habit and it most likely will kill you, we know that and smokers except that fact. My argument is your mention of taxes. Dollar for dollar smokers pay more taxes than just about everyone, they pay the regular taxes that you pay plus about %80 per pack of cigarettes. I'm not about to mention my feelings on Medicare or welfare.
 
It is fairly evident that this topic (smoking law) is far from black and white, as demonstrated by the numerous pages of dialogue. There are a couple of items that have led me to my opinion

In all industries an employer is responsible for providing a safe working environment. That's why there are groups such as OSHA. In fact OSHA has air quality standards for work environments. (It has always eluded me as to why OSHA never regulated tobacco smoke in work places, but would regulate all other sources of toxins) But I think most can agree that having a safe workplace is a good thing. Does OSHA go overboard? That's a whole different topic...

When I look at the effects of the law I can't help but see the positives out weighing the negatives.

Positives: People are not exposed to carcinogens if they do not want to be, i.e. less risk of cancer to many. (Even smokers should have the right to choice when they inhale smoke)

Negatives: It limits that areas in which one can smoke.

The fact is that government agencies constantly have to evaluate where the line should be drawn when comparing the personal freedoms of some to the personal freedoms of others. If someone is being granted more freedom, someone else is being restricted. Public safety has become one of those issues that usually trumps personal freedoms.

BTW, I do like the idea of implementing a air quality standard instead of a "no smoking" law. It allows more options (choices) than "banning" the use of cigarette products.
 
I'm gonna be totally wacked, and say only the following:

Non highway speed limit (like everywhere but on the MAJOR highways): 20mph

All cars should look like animals.

No stop signs or stoplights.

Would you want to be drunk and drive in that situation? I heard a wonderful NPR story about it....
 
Crazytwoknobs said:
I'm gonna be totally wacked, and say only the following:

Non highway speed limit (like everywhere but on the MAJOR highways): 20mph

All cars should look like animals.

No stop signs or stoplights.

Would you want to be drunk and drive in that situation? I heard a wonderful NPR story about it....
Ain't that how it is for e'verone?:drunk: hic....
 
Back
Top