Arizona is now smoke free

[disaffected]

This whole I'm For and I'm Against thing is the wrong point to me. Why can't a private business CHOOSE to be either smoking or non-smoking. The employees would then know, before they take a job, that they were working in a smoking/non-smoking place. Patrons would CHOOSE whether they wanted to sit in a smoking/non-smoking place.

Maybe a bar would lost it's non-smokers if it decided to stay w/ smoking. Maybe the bar would lose it's smokers if it went non-smoke, BUT IT SHOULD BE THE BUSINESS' DECISION, NOT THE GOVERNMENT's!!!

This is trivial to me. Laws to prohibit private businesses and individuals from doing lawful things are reactionary, unnecessary and embarrasing to a "free" society.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Good post! Applause!

 

[disaffected]

There were other AZ propositions I'd love to post (rant) on but must refrain, must refrain! Or head to some political ranters anonmyous site.

Volconvo is a good political debate site.

 

[olllllo]

Hey, I don't mean to be a bastard about this. You guys are all making good points and I think we are all learning something.

This is the first opportunity I've had to speak with people I respect about this. I just spent the last few days hearing it from smokers at work became born again Libertarians when it comes to smoker's rights but would sell out someone's Miranda rights if they weren't the right color or had 'merican' sounding names.

 

[disaffected]

Um, I don't smoke. Never have. It is indeed a filthy habit. However, it is entirely legal. I don't think it is my business, or the government's, to tell people where they can and can't partake in a perfectly legal activity. it's just government sticking their noses where they don't belong, again, like telling me I have to wear a seatbelt or telling me what age my kid has to be before I can take him out of a carseat, like telling me I have to stand on the grass in the park, not on the sidewalk, in order to drink a beer. If a guy next me in a bar wants to light up, fine. If you don't like it, there's the door. Let the individual businesses make their own decisions as to the policies, rather than the government, then let the public choose whether or not they are going to frequent their establishments based upon their policies, not the government's. If they are going to mandate anything, it should be adequate ventilation systems. But that would make too much sense.
Let's see how many of you I've pi$$ed off with this one. Cheers.

Another fine post I applaud and agree with.

 

[user 574]

I view this kind of like all grain vs extract; aluminum and bleach. Good debate.

 

[olllllo]

RE: Government control.

It was a proposition (the democratic proceess) and not the Government. Free market vote if you will. The government played no role in passing this legislation.

 

[disaffected]

But now this propositon, now law, levels the playing field for this state and this will force those who want smoking and a place to go to test maket forces. Still confident in that entreprenureal model? Then you should expect some sort of smoker club to go gangbusters here.

Given the provision in the law to let private clubs allow smoking, that's precisely what I'd expect. Assuming the provision doesn't impose so many restrictions that it is impractical for other reasons, that is. Someone pushed for that exception, so someone else must feel the same way.

I'm always confident that in the absence of coercion the entrepreneurial model will support the desires of the market without artificial distortions. I'm also certain the economy would benefit under those circumstances, since such an approach favors an increase in entrepreneurial ventures.

I don't know if the law leveled the playing field in Arizona. Were there some areas that had passed bans already? If not, then it was level before too. That isn't my point and I don't care what kind of bar, smoking or non-smoking, becomes predominant when determined by market forces. I only wish for the market to be the determining factor, not the government.

 

[disaffected]

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. What, I wonder, will tomorrow bring?

 

[disaffected]

RE: Government control.

It was a proposition (the democratic proceess) and not the Government. Free market vote if you will. The government played no role in passing this legislation.

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

 

[disaffected]

RE: Government control.

It was a proposition (the democratic proceess) and not the Government. Free market vote if you will. The government played no role in passing this legislation.

Free market vote? The government played no role? 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?

 

[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 ******* 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 sh!t. 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.