Prohibition Returns!

[Buford]

While I support your right to not like my smoking, you make lots of sense wise one. It's a rational argument put forth on the message board again. I love it.

The other thing is - I don't get to vote in all elections. I get to vote in MY elections. I voted my 2 senators in who support smoking, but you guys voted in 98 who don't.

Let those 98 make laws in your part of the country and let my 2 make laws in mine.

This is one reason I like the concept of states doing their own thing and the feds not being able to do much of anything except provide for the common defense and prevent trade barriers between states. Don't like where you're at because the legislature is opposed to your viewpoint? There are 49 other places to go. If the feds decree something you are opposed to, you're simply SOL unless you want to leave the country.

 

[jezter6]

tell you what - next time the FDA determines that a medication is harmful, toxic, and hazardous, you go ahead and keep taking it. In fact, make your children take it as well.

If your poison wasn't disbursed into the air, no one would care. But why not chew tobacco?

Why do you NEED to smoke?

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*.

If smoking is SOOOOOOOOO bad, outlaw it right out. Make it illegal and stop production. Until then, it is my right to do it, as much as it is your right NOT to want me to do it near you.

Again, I'm looking for equality. I'm saying that you can have your way too, just don't try and force your way onto ME. It's against the founding fathers of this country and why we bailed out of jolly England in the first place.

 

[Germey]

I can come up with a dozen jobs where there are long term hazards...but you can't join up for that career if you can't handle it.

And in every single one of those cases, you will find measures being taken to mitigate that risk. Hell, even at the whiff of "monitor radiation" we saw an explosion of those hocus pocus filter thingies. Companies were paying $50 bucks or more for each of those things, and that was without a law.
Without a doubt, some waiters/waitresses do treat their job as something they are doing till they find something better. But that is not nearly all of them, and boy does it make a difference in the service you get.
Make sure you inform your next server of their disgruntled, whiner, underclass status.

 

[Docapi]

I can come up with a dozen jobs where there are long term hazards...but you can't join up for that career if you can't handle it.

I'm a correctional officer. I am exposed on a daily basis to AIDS, MRSA, Hepatitis C, and a host of other diseases- not to mention the ever present danger associated with being alone in a room with 100 convicted rapists, murderers, and child molesters.

If I ever decide that I am no longer willing to accept the risks I take with my safety and health due to my career choice, I will quit. I always have that option.

What I do NOT expect to happen, however, is for the government to pass a "no inmates in prisons" law to protect my or my co-workers health.

The simple fact is, every job has is drawbacks. You know them when you put in the application, and have the opportunity to decide at that time if the job s worth the drawbacks.

Anybody that tries to claim that they "didn't know" that they would be continually exposed to cigarette smoke as a bartender is either a liar or too stupid for me to care about.

 

[Buford]

I'm not blowing my own horn, I just want you to ask your self, what have you done to change things?

Speaking for myself, I spend at least one full day a session at the VA General Assembly and email my Delegate on his stance on various bills, who tends to respond to me personally. Granted, I ran against him in 2005

Now I just have to wait and see what the election results are on Tuesday for this three-way local county race I'm in...

 

[Evan!]

There are quite a few places that I love to go to, and would do so smoking or no smoking. They are just great places to go. I find that I enjoy them even more now that they are smoke free. Plain and simple.

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? Did you talk to the owner? Did you petition the establishment? Did you gather a group of regular customers to peaceably boycott the place until they restricted or prohibited smoking?

What gets me is when people complain and complain, but never do anything about it except say 'they should ban this'. Then they get the government thugs to do it for them. I just wish that more people would choose a different route than the brute force of the government and the restriction of other people's property rights as a means to affect change. Rather than a protector of your rights (what the government is supposed to be), people see it as a tool to force everyone else to make their lives better.

I'm not singling you out or even pointing in your direction, DS...you're a reasonably, nice dude...and I doubt that you even did anything to help make the ban happen...I'm just addressing the attitude that government is a way to force others to do what you want.

 

[jezter6]

And in every single one of those cases, you will find measures being taken to mitigate that risk. Hell, even at the whiff of "monitor radiation" we saw an explosion of those hocus pocus filter thingies. Companies were paying $50 bucks or more for each of those things, and that was without a law.
Without a doubt, some waiters/waitresses do treat their job as something they are doing till they find something better. But that is not nearly all of them, and boy does it make a difference in the service you get.
Make sure you inform your next server of their disgruntled, whiner, underclass status.

That's fine. Levy those measures upon bar owners. Make quality smoke eating devices mandatory. It mitigates the risk.

If my server cries because I'm smoking in a smoking allowed restaurant, I will GLADLY inform them of their status. However, not all wait staff are like that, and I am aware of it. I am calling out those who are unable to choose anything else but to fight the wrong battle.

Again, there are PLENTY of non-smoking places to work at. Employment is not a right in this country. You are not guaranteed employment, you volunteer for it.

 

[Fingers]

I can't agree with the guys who say that you should just choose not to work in an environment that has smokey air. ALL work environments should be as safe as possible. It speaks to that not hurting others thing I was mentioning. In some cases the only jobs available to people might be ones like these. They shouldn't have to waive their right to clean air so they can eat.

Docapi, as a prison guard I'm sure your employer goes to extraordinary ends to try and keep you as safe as possible while you do your job. I agree that it's probably not possible or reasonable to protect you 100% from all hazards, but in a smokey bar the hazard is clearly present too so the employee can and should be protected. I believe it can be done 100%.

 

[Evan!]

This is one reason I like the concept of states doing their own thing and the feds not being able to do much of anything except provide for the common defense and prevent trade barriers between states. Don't like where you're at because the legislature is opposed to your viewpoint? There are 49 other places to go. If the feds decree something you are opposed to, you're simply SOL unless you want to leave the country.

Unfortunately, I think Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that even knows what Federalism is, much less works to support it. And you know how much of a chance he has of winning.

 

[Cheesefood]

"hey, they voted, they wanted homebrewing out, so who am I to question the will of the majority?" I certainly wouldn't.

I smoke things that are illegal. I do them in my home. While many people are not opposed to them, I know that if I did it in a bar people would tell me to put it out. If I did it in a park, people would ask me not to.

Do you think your libertarian rights should protect mothers by allowing them to take thalidimide?

What about lead paint? Isn't it my decision whether or not I want my house painted with lead, or my kid's toys to have lead paint? I'm not even allowed to buy those any longer!

Also, I really miss companies having the right to bury PCB in neighborhoods. I know that I don't live in one of those neighborhoods where the children were getting sick and people were dying. Those were poor people, and they should move to a better house. Isn't it great that we live in a county where people have lousy, low paying jobs because they want them? And where people live in small houses in polluted areas because it's their choice?

I have a good job and live in a rich neighborhood, so why should I care whether or not a company is burying something toxic in your area?

Because I do care.

Yes, bars are losing business, but people are quitting smoking in record numbers. Bars will rebound soon. Tobacco companies are learning that people don't want a product that stinks and pollutes the air. I'm sure they're working on a more neighborly smoke.

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.

All of you who think smoking doesn't cause health problems, come work where I do! Go to the oncology department of a hospital and see how many patients smell smoky. Believe it or not, their caregivers are standing outside smoking while the patient is getting an irrigation tube inserted in their stomach do they can eat a meal and allow it to go through the tube and into a bag instead of being thrown up.

Go see how many people there are your age and have their kids with them.

I'm telling you this from first hand experience. I hear, see, and experience cancer patients every day and a lot of them are smokers. These aren't 95 year olds, these are 30 year olds and 40 year olds.

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.

That's why I'm against it. I get paid by your type, but it amazes me to see how loyal people are to a product that's destroying them, causing their hair and teeth to fall out and forcing them to have surgery and radiation beams blasted into their chest.

 

[Evan!]

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?

 

[Drunkensatyr]

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.

...you're a reasonably, nice dude...

LOL... what is with the comma? *grin* It is ok you are a reasonably, nice dude too.

 

[Fingers]

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.

 

[Cheesefood]

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.

 

[Cheesefood]

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.

 

[Fingers]

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.

 

[Germey]

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. 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

 

[jezter6]

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 ******s. 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 ****-free facility where people who do not want wanking going on can sit in peace without the threat of a random ****-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!!!!!!

 

[Fingers]

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.

 

[jezter6]

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.

 

[Beerthoven]

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.

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.

 

[Evan!]

LOL... what is with the comma? *grin* It is ok you are a reasonably, nice dude too.

I meant "reasonable, nice dude".

 

[Germey]

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
Your example intended to stop hypothetical discussions brings up the perfect one, though.
Imagine enough public ******s 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.

 

[olllllo]

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.

 

[WortMonger]

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.

 

[Beerthoven]

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...

 

[WortMonger]

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.

 

[Sherpa FE]

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.
Its all those Nouns, Verbs, Pro Nouns and Pro Verbs...........

 

[Whiskey]

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.

 

[Yanos]

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.