Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Mordenheim: quote: Originally posted by Mordenheim: A FAIR AND EQUAL conclusion was never tried nor considered. So go ahead and not respond to 90% of my post and pick what you feel you can attack. Just remember that no amount of debate is going to change this fact : When you make the LEGAL act of smoking ILLEGAL in a PRIVATE owned establishment then you ARE discriminating. So enjoy it folk's and be glad to wear the "tearing down America one freedom at a time" hat.

[/QUOTE]Simple solution then, we outlaw nicotine. Since it has no medical vaule it should be classified as a narcotic, like heroin. [/QUOTE]You are absolutely correct that nicotine has no medical value, but with this approach you fail to address the social, cultural and even religious value people put on tobacco use. I find this solution is the most facist of all, along the same lines as outlawing cannabis.

All though nicotine wont cure any disease, it is a mental stimulant. I sometimes find it to be an invaluable ally when I hit a road block in the creative process. Sitting back and having a smoke "clears the air" for me if you will.

Plus the social aspect: My friends And I go out to drink, smoke, and/or shoot pool. Since we goto a place that caters to both smokers and non-smokers inside the same building we can have an equitable time with our friends that just want to drink and shoot pool, or just drink or just shoot pool. We are all happy and we just need a law that allows for segregated smoking areas to achieve this level of social harmony. GRrrrreat!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Simple solution then, we outlaw nicotine. Since it has no medical vaule it should be classified as a narcotic, like heroin.

That is YOUR judgment call, so don't apply it to me. The same can be said for alcohol and caffeine. And refined sugar.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Plus the social aspect: My friends And I go out to drink, smoke, and/or shoot pool. Since we goto a place that caters to both smokers and non-smokers inside the same building we can have an equitable time with our friends that just want to drink and shoot pool, or just drink or just shoot pool. We are all happy and we just need a law that allows for segregated smoking areas to achieve this level of social harmony. GRrrrreat!

And other drugs classified as illeagal are used in social settings too, Ecstasy, cocaine, LSD, etc...

As for the people that use tabacco for religious reasons, there are already provisions for that in current federal drug laws.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: Simple solution then, we outlaw nicotine. Since it has no medical vaule it should be classified as a narcotic, like heroin.

That is YOUR judgment call, so don't apply it to me. The same can be said for alcohol and caffeine. And refined sugar. [/QUOTE]Alcohol in moderations has been shown to have positive health effects. Caffeine as well has been shown to have positive effects as well (on the sex lives of seniors). Refinied suger on the other hand is pure evil [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Or maybe we should just allow smokers to get there nicotine in a non-smoke form. Then everyone could be happy [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: And other drugs classified as illeagal are used in social settings too, Ecstasy, cocaine, LSD, etc...

True. Legalize them. Woulda made my life much simpler in college. Well, except cocaine. Anyway, it is NOT about whether or not the drug has social value. It is about limiting your freedom. Plus, as you point out regarding alcohol and caffeine, social value is once again a JUDGMENT CALL.

Some would say masturbation has no social value. Catholics, for instance (every sperm being sacred and all that). Others would disagree -- like Sue Johansen, my favorite Canadian import. Who decides? Well, in Alabama and 4 or 5 other states (last time I checked), the legislature made it illegal years ago. Is this appropriate?

Botox simply kills neurons. Social value? Well, ask a 50-year-old actress who can't get a job as easily with her "real" face. It's a judgment call. So, I'll make mine, and you make yours. Now, if the law just simply made us both live with the results of our choices.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: And other drugs classified as illeagal are used in social settings too, Ecstasy, cocaine, LSD, etc...

True. Legalize them. Woulda made my life much simpler in college. Well, except cocaine. Anyway, it is NOT about whether or not the drug has social value. It is about limiting your freedom. Plus, as you point out regarding alcohol and caffeine, social value is once again a JUDGMENT CALL.
[/QUOTE]You know what is one of the most ironic things is if the cig companies wanted to make a device to just deliver nicotine without the smoke they would have to get FDA approval. So instead they deliver nicotine in a much more dangerous form.

[Timber Loftis]

Hey, I'm not against the FDA regulating cigarettes. I think they are obviously OTC drugs. It's a strong tobacco lobby that has stopped this. President Clinton tried to do this, and the common joke was that he stopped when he found out VA,KY, and NC would secede from the union.

The FDA has its own problems and on many issues is stoopid stoopid stoopid. However, if we assume it is appropriate to have an agency that regulates drugs, there is no good reason tobacco should not be on the list. Alcohol, too.

Now, I really don't know to what extent the ATF actually regulates the contents of these things -- but I see the ATF as an enforcer more than a scientific regulator anyway.

[Mordenheim]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: quote: Originally posted by Mordenheim: Why exactly do you reward 600 million to one single man who got cancer? To kill the company of course.

I have to disagree with this. The comapny was fined 600 million for selling a product they knew to be addictive and fatal after long exposure, and advertising it as safe and beneficial to health. They also were fined for suppressing research that proved the damaging, carcinogenic effects of cigarettes, and for not releasing their own research that proved the same thing.

Big fines are there to try and stop large, rich corporations from doing exactly this type of thing. Government is at least on some level and in an entirely inadequate way answerable to the voting public. Large corporations are answerable to stockholders and profit margins. If they could get away with selling you a product that they know is addictive and will kill you, while advertising it as healthy and safe, then they will. In fact, they did, for decades. As untrustworthy as governmental organisations are, private companies on a large scale are 100 times worse.

Generally, though, on the issue at hand I tend to agree with those defending smokers rights. Even though someone on this thread denied reports that smoke-free bars were doing better business than smoker bars in the USA, that is what is happening in the UK, so it's not as ridiculous as they tried to make out.

Yorick's point is well taken about being able to practise his music in non-smokey bars, but I don't think it holds much water. Society has rules about what is illegal and illegal, and smoking in and of itself is not illegal. Who is the government to tell me that I cannot carry out a legal act in a place I own?

I am a non-smoker, and I hate the stuff, yet when I go out with my father for a drink and a game of pool, he smokes a cigar. I don't view this as an infringement of my rights. He is excercising his right to smoke. I ask him not to blow it in my direction, and everyone is happy. If there is an overly smokey bar, I won't go in it. We will find a smoking bar that is less ... intense, shall we say? Everyone is happy.

The name of the game is compromise. When we get to a situation where we do away with compromise and the rights and abilities of people to make their own decisions or reach their own adult compromises, then we have a problem.

This is an entirely different matter to drinking. If someone drink drives (or drink shoots), then this is totally outside of our control. No matter where we walk or where we go, we might be shot/run over/stabbed by someone under the influence. This is immediate, exceptionally fatal, and beyond our control. Smoking is not that way. You can see (and smell) a smoker coming at 100 paces. If you don't want to breathe in their smoke, you have innumerable options. Try them, instead of having them arrested for puffing on a cancer-stick while people are being shot, stabbed, murdered and so on.

Overall, I guess what I am saying is - use a little common sense. Everyone will have different ideas about how the world should be run. How conflict-free your life is depends on how you are willing to compromise with other people to find a workable alternative. [/QUOTE]600 x 15 will kill almost any company. It is absurd. They should be punished but that is absurd. Don't worry folk's McDonalds is going through it. As said 1 lawyer won 2 "fat" cases. I honest to god heard one client say "they are to blame for making the food to addicting" and I almost had a heart attack. So while you might have a case for smoking it wa sjust the begining! Fear folks...

[ 05-13-2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

[Rokenn]

So, hundreds of posts and we are no closer to a solution [img]smile.gif[/img] I guess we can add smoking bans to the list with gun control, abortion, and religion as subjects that generate lots of posts with entrenched viewpoints [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, Rokenn, while I will agree to disagree on the other topics, on this one I feel there MUST be a solution that is acceptable to all. With this topic, it is true that the smoker harms and/or offends non-smokers around him/her. It is also true that the proposed solution adopted by NYC affects the rights of the smoker.

Thus, each group has something to lose. So, it's not like Religion or Abortion where you live your way, and I'll live mine, and we won't affect each other in any way other than morals/emotions. There is a real tangible immediate effect on each others health and liberty.

Therefore, if I had my 'druthers, I would demand everyone continue to sit at the negotiating table and work on it.

What about this: 1.) Ban smoking outside. 2.) Allow private places to make up their own mind on the issue, but limit city building permits in a way such that there are always a minimum number of bars that are non-smoking venues. This would ensure the non-smokers that the venues catering to their habits (or non-habits) would actually exist (Whereas I and others argue the venue would be provided by the market.)