Smoking ban

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Lanesra: How do we have a choice ? what if I want to drink in a smoke free bar ?

Then the market should provide you with such bars. I do note that there are bars in Chicago where one cannot smoke. A jazz club I go to is no smoking, for instance, and has GREAT live jazz. However, I recognize that the market may fail to provide this on its own, so I have suggested a zoning rule that would require a certain % of bars be non-smoking. Dig?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Just to remind you again Yorick, "Freedom From" is not freedom, but security, and is at the opposite side of the Liberty/Security axis. Sliding on Timber's coattails on the smoking issue only, a system that lets market forces determine the environment while maintaining a minimum % of both smoking and non-smoking establishments preserves everyone's freedom to partake their leisure or earn their living in an environment to their individual tastes. It leaves choice open.

You haven't reminded me of anything. You are completely incorrect.

Freedom FROM oppression vs Freedom TO oppress
Freedom FROM discrimination vs Freedom TO discriminate
Freedom FROM intolerance vs Freedom TO be intolerant.

If a nation has the freedom TO oppress, discriminate and be intolerant to itself, then individuals freedoms are seriously curtailed.

You're completely ignoring reason by insisting, against every logical understanding of human behaviour - that freedom FROM something is not freedom. Security in your town (freedom FROM crime), is the freedom TO leave doors unlocked, or let women and children walk around at all hours of the night.
Freedom TO commit violent crime, means other peoples freedoms to do certain activities are seriusly curtailed.

All a government is, is a collection of humans. Criminals are other humans. Laws use fear to prevent certain individuals from doing certain actions. Criminals actions use fear to prevent certain people from doing certain actions.

Same effect, different section of society.

Lose the right wing blind spot Night Stalker and see society for what it really is. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-02-2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Originally posted by Yorick: [qb]You should have freedom from having to work or socialize in places that are smoke-free. However, if you translate that into requiring that ALL places be smoke free, you have completely removed my liberty to have at least some places where I can smoke and drink.

Right. At which point we look at which is the lesser of two evils. The imposition on my freedom means my health is adversely affected by your freedom, or my work OPPORTUNITIES are less than yours, for a smoker can work in smoking or nonsmoking environments, wheras, a nonsmoker can only work in nonsmoking if they are to maintain their choice.

The unfortunate reality about smoking, is that you make choices not for just yourself, but also for anyone around you.

That is the problem. Hence the current solution. Smoke in private, or in the open air.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: I'm happy with what we have here. Public open to minors; no smoking. Resturants, bowling alleys, etc.. Public off limits to minors; smoking. Bars, clubs, hard alcohol, etc. We all have a choice. No infringement.

Except if you like a drink, but don't smoke, you're screwed. If you're a waiter, musician, bartender or hostess who doesn't smoke, you're also screwed. It's not a good system Felix.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: Right. At which point we look at which is the lesser of two evils. The imposition on my freedom means my health is adversely affected by your freedom, or my work OPPORTUNITIES are less than yours, for a smoker can work in smoking or nonsmoking environments, wheras, a nonsmoker can only work in nonsmoking if they are to maintain their choice. The unfortunate reality about smoking, is that you make choices not for just yourself, but also for anyone around you. That is the problem. Hence the current solution. Smoke in private, or in the open air.

sigh ... it shouldn't have to be so draconian as that. By letting market forces thrive while maintaining small minimum %s of both kinds of establishments, your work opportunities would not be limited. You may be limited to not play in club X, but probabilities are there would be a club that is just as prosperous for you to ply your trade.

In fact, by letting market forces dictate the scene, if many musicians decided to only play in smoke free venues, the market would adjust to the point where if someone wanted to see live bands, they would have to give up the cigs for a few hours.

The compromise proposed by Timber, and me, preseves choice for everyone's intrests. The only arguement you have left is quibbling over whether that choice is in your favor in a particular establishment, and that is just selfish.

Choice is preserved, opportunity is preserved. You just don't have infinite opportunity, but that is unrealistic to expect.

[Timber Loftis]

Again, we are back to the same position on this issue. Yorick wants it all his way -- he won't even give me a measley 20% of bars where I and people like me can enjoy life the way we like it. No one forced you to CHOSE Yorick, I offered both. And, while we're at it -- you chose to take away my 20% of bars because 80% wasn't enough for you. Greedy Git.

I offered up the lesser of two evils -- accomodating both prefences. You'd rather take my liberty away than simply avoid a small percentage of bars. You've got your own blind spots to consider.

[Oblivion437]

As I see it, in a bar you're already killing your liver. In a stripclub you're killing your soul, and in a government building you're killing your sanity. Why should lungs get special treatment? More importantly, the freedoms of the Smoker are in question. I believe a private property should have the legally protected power to ban smoking or consumption of alcohol or whatever they want on their premesis, but mandated state bans effectively rule what one can and cannot consume. I feel this is a direct violation of our natural rights. I feel a lot of things are in violation of our natural rights.

[Timber Loftis]

My God, no wonder I'm soulless and insane.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: Lose the right wing blind spot Night Stalker and see society for what it really is. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

This quip is beneeth you. Considdering that Right Wingers are often viewed as [warning OTT comment ahead] greedy, intolerant, Bible Thumpers .... one would be hard pressed to attatch that label to one that is non-religious, advocates Liberty and tolerance for All, and seeks compromises in the best intrests of all instead of wanting everything for me only on my terms.

On the other hand ........

Stick to the topic and try to view the big picture of the individual. For I am much more than a woefully miopic two dimensional label.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Right. At which point we look at which is the lesser of two evils. The imposition on my freedom means my health is adversely affected by your freedom, or my work OPPORTUNITIES are less than yours, for a smoker can work in smoking or nonsmoking environments, wheras, a nonsmoker can only work in nonsmoking if they are to maintain their choice. The unfortunate reality about smoking, is that you make choices not for just yourself, but also for anyone around you. That is the problem. Hence the current solution. Smoke in private, or in the open air.

sigh ... it shouldn't have to be so draconian as that. By letting market forces thrive while maintaining small minimum %s of both kinds of establishments, your work opportunities would not be limited. You may be limited to not play in club X, but probabilities are there would be a club that is just as prosperous for you to ply your trade.

In fact, by letting market forces dictate the scene, if many musicians decided to only play in smoke free venues, the market would adjust to the point where if someone wanted to see live bands, they would have to give up the cigs for a few hours.

The compromise proposed by Timber, and me, preseves choice for everyone's intrests. The only arguement you have left is quibbling over whether that choice is in your favor in a particular establishment, and that is just selfish.

Choice is preserved, opportunity is preserved. You just don't have infinite opportunity, but that is unrealistic to expect. [/QUOTE]Ah yes... market choices. If we let market choices have full sway unchecked we would still have slavery. Sometimes people need to step in and say "you know what, the market can go screw itself. That's not RIGHT."

Think Child labour, think uaffordable health care... oh what am I wasting my breath for? Right wingers don't give a hoot about subsidised health care do they. Leave it to the market. Let the have nots wallow without, while those with money, create the demand for socially destructive supply.

When you have money, you have choices. When you do not, you don't. You are forced into situations to survive. Think prstitution. Desperate acts junkies make. Think people compromising their health daily, just to put food on their table. Choice. Some can choose more than others.

The fact is, the struggling single mother who want's to give up smoking so her unborn baby doesn't inherit her bad smoke related health, has no choice but to keep working in the only bar in town, because the population is too small to have a smokers bar, and nonsmokers bar. She has no options because she has no money to get an education, or better training because she's forking out all her money raising her kids.

Choice?

So society steps in and removes some of her bad luck, because she is a HAVE NOT. Now the only bar in town is smoke free. Now her child doesn't start life with a nicotene addiction or malformed lungs. Now she's not going to cut years off her life, or fork out more medical costs when she gets lung cancer or lung related illness. Now she has more choice and is in a slightly more even playing field.

Slightly.

Don't give me the market bullcrap. The market has no compassion. The market has no heart. The market would leave the poor, handicapped and insane on the streets... oh wait.. New York, the capital of world capitalism, has more beggars than anywhere else, and more billionaires(32) than anywhere else. How interesting.