Arizona is now smoke free

[Bernie Brewer]

Why stop there? You haven't yet exhausted the ever-growing list of incursions against individual liberty that seem to grow day by day.

Amen.

Some people object to voting on moral grounds, as I do. There is no level playing field.

Amen again.

Free market vote? Appearances can be deceiving. Who crafted the language of the propositions that were proposed? Who decided which one would be offered to the voters to decide? Why refer to it as democracy when it looks, acts, and walks like oligarchy?

Amen again again.

 

[olllllo]

Who crafted the language of the propositions that were proposed?

The American Heart Assn. The American Cancer Society to name a few
http://www.smokefreearizona.org/grassroots/endorsers

Prop 206 - a toothless sham of a propostion that proposed an alternative was sponsored by RJ Reynolds, "Guardians of freedom"™*
*if it involves profit

olllllo
And it still is as long as you're not in a bar or restaurant in AZ, or an airplane internationally or domestically, or an elevator, or in a hospital, or while refueling your car (federal).

Why stop there? You haven't yet exhausted the ever-growing list of incursions against individual liberty that seem to grow day by day.

So, you're ok being liberated from the toil of mortality because someone excercised thier right to smoke while topping off thier tank.

I don't know if the law leveled the playing field in Arizona. Were there some areas that had passed bans already?

Yes there was a patchwork of municipal bans.

 

[feedthebear]

I personally have no sympathy for smokers on this issue. Smokers have been able to light up when ever and where ever they have wanted to for 300 years and non-smokers had to put up with it. Its about time the tables were turned.

Besides, if you are a smoker, quit. Okay, smoking is a personal choice. But I've burried too many friends and family members who have died of lung diseases. I don't want to watch any more die that way. But, there's my mother diagnosed with pulminary fibrosis and emphysemia three years ago. She's had two near fatal bouts of flu in two of those years. She might live another five, if she's lucky.

 

[disaffected]

So, you're ok being liberated from the toil of mortality because someone excercised thier right to smoke while topping off thier tank.

No. I accept responsibility for living my life, knowing full well that life is inherently dangerous. I don't ask anyone else to be responsible for me, nor do I petition for law or wish to be ruled by others or to rule others.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

No. I accept responsibility for living my life, knowing full well that life is inherently dangerous. I don't ask anyone else to be responsible for me, nor do I petition for law or wish to be ruled by others or to rule others.

So you're a smoldering anarchist?

 

[disaffected]

So you're a smoldering anarchist?

Anarcho-capitalist, actually, and I only smolder when I smoke. Cigars and pipes, though, not cigarettes.

 

[Cheesefood]

So by many of your opinions, we should allow businesses to decide where they can dump pollution and how much. Don't like your lake filled with sludge? Move to a new lake! Don't like your air filled with particulates, move to the mountains! Hey, companies need to dump mercury somewhere, why not in our fishing pond? Sorry you think it'll cause your kid asthma, it's their right. Don't take their rights away, right?

George Carlin said it best "A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in the swimming pool."

 

[SwAMi75]

All this talk makes me want to light a cigar.

Me too! Have you checked out our stogie thread?

I haven't had a cigarette in almost a month now. I have one cigar/day, sometimes none, occaisonally two on the weekends. I haven't really wanted a cigarette too badly until I read this thread. The thought of drinking a beer at a bar and enjoying a smoke (or a whole goddamn pack)......oh, man!

Personally, I think it should be the business owner's choice. Let them maintain the atmosphere they want. If the place is too smokey for you, don't go there. We're not talking about the public library here, we're talking (primarily) about bars.

I understand why it raises the ire of so many, though. Second-hand cigarette smoke is some horribly nasty stuff. Even when I smoked a pack a day, I didn't do it in my own home because it smelled so bad, and is a big health risk to my family.

OK, enough cigarette talk or I'm gonna have a fit!

 

[olllllo]

No. I accept responsibility for living my life, knowing full well that life is inherently dangerous. I don't ask anyone else to be responsible for me, nor do I petition for law or wish to be ruled by others or to rule others.

I heard about this place. Is it the Sims or Second Life?

 

[Zocken]

my thoughts on this, its more of a what next like was said earlier.


Sure I'm a smoker and I like a cig with my brew, but thats not the point.

The point is everyone is most of the people who voted on this do not go to the bar. I would venture that %50-%75 of the voters on the issue were not regular bar goers. Now if this were the true wish of the people, the people in this case bar patrons, then would they have not done what a true capitalist society does and voted with their money?

There is a reason bars did not go no-smoking on their own, it was not financially doable. the bulk of their clientel were smokers. If the non smokers had gotten together and say, lets not go to this bar, or lets open up a non-smoking bar then you would have not infringed on ANYONES rights. however with this law you are infringing on the rights of those who do smoke. The law says it is my right to slowly kill myself with tobacco. The law also says you have the right not to give your money to those who support my habit.

Therein lies the problem I have with this law, instead of doing what was already there to do, and not really all that difficult, If these guys had enough $$ to finance a campaign for this they had enough to open a bar, they had to go in and create more laws.


/soapbox

 

[disaffected]

So by many of your opinions, we should allow businesses to decide where they can dump pollution and how much. Don't like your lake filled with sludge? Move to a new lake! Don't like your air filled with particulates, move to the mountains! Hey, companies need to dump mercury somewhere, why not in our fishing pond? Sorry you think it'll cause your kid asthma, it's their right. Don't take their rights away, right?

George Carlin said it best "A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in the swimming pool."

No, not at all. You are describing chaos and aggression. That's not the sort of society that free-market anarchists advocate. Here is a good summary of Anarcho-capitalism if you would like a more thorough understanding of the philosophy.

 

[Cheesefood]

No, not at all. You are describing chaos and aggression. That's not the sort of society that free-market anarchists advocate. Here is a good summary of Anarcho-capitalism if you would like a more thorough understanding of the philosophy.

OK, I didn't finish the article, but I don't see any parallels to my argument.

It comes down to this: The people voted. They said "No Smoking." They might not all go to bars, but that's probably because bars are too smokey. I haven't seen one bar try to unite their patrons against the bills. Smoking is a disgusting, polluting, cancer-causing habit. It pollutes the air and pollutes the earth (from discarded butts and ashes). Most smokers don't care that they often burn people with their cigarettes, nor has any smoker I've seen ever offer to repay a person for burning a hole in their clothes. Most smokers are too inconsiderate to care that people might not want their smoke in the air, and they refuse to step outside for a cigarette. Smoking is bad for the employees of these organizations and for the patrons.

The people voted. If the real majority wanted public smoking, they'd have allowed it. How often to politicians side against Big Tobacco?

 

[ayrton]

Having a smoking section in a building is like having a peeing section in a pool.

If you can find a way to successfully manage to keep the smoke contained to the person who is smoking, then I wouldn't have a problem. Like it or not, though, the smoke that you are releasing is toxic and is filled with all sorts of things that you don't have a right to release into the air in a public space. You are allowed to do whatever you want to yourself, sure, but when what you are doing actively affects me, that's where your rights stop.

 

[Desert_Sky]

Most smokers don't care that they often burn people with their cigarettes, nor has any smoker I've seen ever offer to repay a person for burning a hole in their clothes. Most smokers are too inconsiderate to care that people might not want their smoke in the air, and they refuse to step outside for a cigarette. Smoking is bad for the employees of these organizations and for the patrons.

Ok, Cheese....I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're a non-smoker? Ok, I understand your point of view on how smokers are inconsiderate and our smoke does pollute, in saying that you are correct. We definitely are inconsiderate on that account. But to go so far as to say we will burn you and not think twice about it? Im not sure how it is where you come from, that you can actually be such an ass as to burn someone and not even care. If I were to pull that crap here, I would expect at least one fist headed toward my face.

Does that seriously happen often? I don't think Ive ever seen or heard anything like that. Well ok, I take that back....there was this one time in Mexico where I did it on purpose, but thats a diferent story.........

 

[user 574]

Inside public I can see although again, philosophically disagree. I could have swore I saw some state (probably CA) that was trying to ban it outside in public areas as well (parks, city sidewalks etc). That right there is the point where its mob mentality and seriously scary ****. I love the people who wave their hand in front of their face whilst outside smoke happens to cross their path for a fleeting second as if they've just been launched into space and can't breath. All while living in LA or other bad air city . Probably goes and has some wine and a high priced stogie at some trendy place later that evening since that's the in thing lately.

Look at guns, if there could be such a thing as a popular vote on the right to bear arms I'd suspect the majority would vote no in some states. Those that don't have them don't usually like them; they can kill those non-gun people, many people know someone who knows someone who was killed by a gun. I didn't actually bring this topic in did I?

(Non smoking, non firearm owning HBT member)

 

[Cheesefood]

Ok, Cheese....I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're a non-smoker? Ok, I understand your point of view on how smokers are inconsiderate and our smoke does pollute, in saying that you are correct. We definitely are inconsiderate on that account. But to go so far as to say we will burn you and not think twice about it? Im not sure how it is where you come from, that you can actually be such an ass as to burn someone and not even care. If I were to pull that crap here, I would expect at least one fist headed toward my face.

Does that seriously happen often? I don't think Ive ever seen or heard anything like that. Well ok, I take that back....there was this one time in Mexico where I did it on purpose, but thats a diferent story.........

I'm an ex-smoker.

You've never heard of anyone getting burned in a crowded bar? You've never found mystery burns on your clothes?

Unless you haven't figured it out, they're trying to make smoking illegal. They can't bring about prohibition all together, but they're trying.

 

[ayrton]

Smoke is harmful. Lack of smoke is not. In other words, if you are smoking, you are harming my lungs (You win, I lose). If you are not allowed to smoke, neither of us is being actively harmed (I win, you break even). Not being allowed to smoke as a smoker isn't as harmful as having to endure it if you are not.

I keep seeing the argument "what makes your enjoyment more important than mine?" The answer is that your enjoyment shouldn't have to come at the cost of mine. Furthermore, what makes your enjoyment more important than mine? And does not having a smoke really ruin your fun?

 

[Desert_Sky]

I'm an ex-smoker.

You've never heard of anyone getting burned in a crowded bar? You've never found mystery burns on your clothes?

Unless you haven't figured it out, they're trying to make smoking illegal. They can't bring about prohibition all together, but they're trying.

no I haven't, but then again Im not the crowded bar type. I prefer a laid back pub or sport's bar. I've always preferred to be able to carry on a conversation in a quiet bar, than a crowded one. So no, I haven't experienced burns of any type.

Now that Ive thought about it though, Im fine with not smoking in bars. It will be a nice change, and my kids will appreciate me living longer. Next step is to quit myself. The last three times I quit, I relapsed becasue of drinking in a smoke filled bar.

 

[user 574]

Think we've met our objective?

 

[Buford]

If CA, VA, NY, Ireland and Italy (to name a few) can survive this... I think that this can actually be a good thing for bars (micros in particular).

VA? Virginia has not banned smoking. It has been attempted in the past but has never made it out of the General Assembly.

 

[Treekiller]

Think we've met our objective?

Man I laughed my hindparts of at this. That is perfect.

 

[Desert_Sky]

*looks around*

1000th Post!!!

thats is all, carry on

 

[disaffected]

OK, I didn't finish the article, but I don't see any parallels to my argument.

So you're not interested in understanding the basis for my position. That precludes further discussion then.

Gee, I guess you win.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

I still want a smoke...

The Smoke Shop (yeah, it's really called that) closed before I left work. Dammit.

 

[dantodd]

ACLU and the Kato Institute.

Don't see those guys lumped in together too often.

 

[dantodd]

They can't bring about prohibition all together, but they're trying.

Yeah, The 18th Amendment worked so well too!

If you look at all the research done on second hand smoke the link to ANY disease is tenuous at best and the WHO research actually showed lower levels of tobacco related diseases.

 

[olllllo]

If you look at all the research done on second hand smoke the link to ANY disease is tenuous at best and the WHO research actually showed lower levels of tobacco related diseases.

The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report


Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
   • Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
   • Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
   • Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
   • Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
   • Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
   • Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
   • Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
   • Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.
5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
   • Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
   • Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
   • The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

 

[Yuri_Rage]

That's it, I'm locking myself in my house, filtering all the air, wearing a dust mask, turning off all of the power, soundproofing every wall, eating only pasteurized organic food, and drinking only filtered water.

But wait...I could still slip and fall in the shower, drowning shortly therafter...

I guess I can't remove all risk from life. Dammit.

Back to crossing the street, drinking, smoking the occasional cigar, driving too fast, flying, motorcycles, running machinery without reading the instruction manual, welding, loud music, and everything else I enjoy.

 

[dantodd]

The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report


Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
   • Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
   • Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
   • Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
   • Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
   • Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
   • Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
   • Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
   • Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.
5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
   • Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
   • Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
   • The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

the link alone would have sufficed.

I think that Dr. Siegel has a more rational approach. There is a significant difference between living with a 2 pack a day smoker and being exposed to second hand smoke at a restaurant or bar.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

 

[dantodd]

Found the WHO study and a press release explaining that there was NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT increase in illness.

http://www.obscurious.co.uk/componants/smoking1440.pdf
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

Now, do I think that it is appropriate to expose our children, spouses or non-smoking co-workers to smoke 8 or more hours a day? Of course not, but I think that a prohibition on smoking in the guise of preserving the health of someone drinking alcohol or eating big fat greasy hamburgers is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous.

 

[Pumbaa]

I've been trying to stay out of this debate since it started because when it comes to politics and the government I get worked up very quickly. I dont want to start throw out words like fascist and tyranny and start alienating people here I respect.

Cheesefood related smoking in a bar to a company dumping toxic polution into the air or lake but thats comparing apples to oranges. The difference is if a company did that, the polution would be leaving their property and therefore forcing it onto others possibly causing harm. If a business allows smoking it is pretty much contained within their walls and the only exposure is voluntary.

If you believe it's ok for the government to step in and ban an activity contained with in a private business what is to stop that same government from stepping in an regulating activities that you may or may not do as is contained with in your own home? Someone here posted an article on diactyls the other day and how harmfull they are, should the government ban brewing since it produces diactyles?

The governments ONLY job is to take care of the stuff you CAN NOT and protect you from things you CAN NOT protect yourself from. Notice I used the phrase "CAN NOT" and didnt choose to use the phrase "WILL NOT".

Anyone that walks into a business that allows smoking has made a choice to be a willing participant. If you stay for any reason you have made a choice to be a willing participant. If you leave you have made a choice to remove yourself fom a harmfull atmosphere. Unless these business are neccesities for life or are locking you inside and not allowing you to excersize your choice to particpate or not participate the government has absolutly no responsibility or right to take a stance in the issue.

 

[Cheesefood]

Cheesefood related smoking in a bar to a company dumping toxic polution into the air or lake but thats comparing apples to oranges. The difference is if a company did that, the polution would be leaving their property and therefore forcing it onto others possibly causing harm. If a business allows smoking it is pretty much contained within their walls and the only exposure is voluntary.

OK, but what about the people who work at the bar? Or wait-staff in restaurants?

Question goes back to this: why should non-smokers be the ones to have to stay home?

If you believe it's ok for the government to step in and ban an activity contained with in a private business what is to stop that same government from stepping in an regulating activities that you may or may not do as is contained with in your own home? Someone here posted an article on diactyls the other day and how harmfull they are, should the government ban brewing since it produces diactyles?

Again - I bring it back to pollution. A business can create pollutants that aren't airborne, but they need to be disposed of somewhere, right? Bars that allow smoking can contain the bulk of it, but it still gets disposed of. Butts and ashes aren't safe. Cigarettes don't get safer just because they're not lit.

Anyone that walks into a business that allows smoking has made a choice to be a willing participant. If you stay for any reason you have made a choice to be a willing participant. If you leave you have made a choice to remove yourself fom a harmfull atmosphere. Unless these business are neccesities for life or are locking you inside and not allowing you to excersize your choice to particpate or not participate the government has absolutly no responsibility or right to take a stance in the issue.

No, what non-smokers did was say "We don't think we should be the ones forced at home". It's not the big, ominous, life-controlling evil "Government Monster" that dictated this, it's the people who voted and asked their officials to make this change. The government's job is to do what the voters tell them to do. There's not some conspiracy out there to limit your freedoms and make life miserable, it's there to make sure that we're allowed LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in respect to the majority.

 

[dantodd]

The government's job is to do what the voters tell them to do.

I really don't want to get too far off track into general politics but that statement is offensive in too many ways to enumerate.

 

[Cheesefood]

I really don't want to get too far off track into general politics but that statement is offensive in too many ways to enumerate.

Any official who tried to pass legislation that contradicted the majority of their consituents views would find themselves without a job. While many of us disagree with a lot of the laws out there, the fact is that they are a valid representation of the population. I think that pot should be legal. I don't understand why it is illegal. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way, but there's a majority out there who think it should be illegal. I feel that it's ridiculous to outlaw gay marriage, but I'm not in the majority.

And then there are times when the government steps in to protect us because they have facts that we don't have. Most consumers accept what product manufacturers say is true. Tobacco is a great example. For years, we were told that it wasn't contagious and wasn't dangerous. But when people started saying "Oh yeah, well how come I can't quit? And why am I getting lung cancer?" the government stepped in to investigate. When they discovered that Big Tobacco was marketing to children and being deceptive in advertising, they clamped down. Was this right or wrong?

 

[Pumbaa]

OK, but what about the people who work at the bar? Or wait-staff in restaurants?

Are they slaves, indentured servents or having a gun held to their head? I'm sure it's not the only employer in area, but they mave made the coice to work their for what ever reason. With risk comes reward, every job has it's risks and rewards and they have made the choice the risk of being exposed to second hand smoke is worth the reward of a paycheck from that business.

Question goes back to this: why should non-smokers be the ones to have to stay home?

Who raised this question? Who has told you to stay home? If you see a demand for a product (non smoking bars and eaterys) that is not being fullfilled then fill it and make a good profit off it. There is a smoke free brewpub within 20 minutes of my house and they seem to be doing well enuff, why should all the brewpubs be forced to cater to one group?

Butts and ashes aren't safe.

2 things . . . show me 1 study of ashes and butts leaching into the eco system and killing people and I'll consider that argument, until then I raise the bullsh!t flag.

Cigarettes don't get safer just because they're not lit.

Again please show me one person killed or one fire started by an unlit cigarette

The government's job is to do what the voters tell them to do. There's not some conspiracy out there to limit your freedoms and make life miserable, it's there to make sure that we're allowed LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in respect to the majority.

So if the majority decided to taxe the richest 30% at a tax rate of 95% and then take that money and write out checks to the majority the government is obligated to do so?

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulg-arly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant--society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it--its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with indiv-idual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

I'm not going to discuss it further on this board because thats not why I come here, but America has definetly lost the ideals of men like Geroge Mason ( http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira60a.html ) and the other founders that made this nation so great.

 

[Chairman Cheyco]

Please discuss this elsewhere guys. Thank you for keeping it civil, but I'm closing it anyway.