Smoking Ban

[Stormymystic]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Smoking is a vile disgusting habit. Your right to pollute your body ends when I'm forced to breath in the by-products of your self-destructive behaviour. Personally I feel it should be outlawed and the executives of the cigerette companies should be tried for crimes against humanity. On a lighter note, here in San Francisco area there are some bars that have built 'smoking rooms',plexi-glass room all the smokers can pack into, light up and shorten their lives by another 7 minutes. The rooms are vented by a seperate ventaliation system.

ok, if it is my right to smoke, then should you take away that freedom by banning them?I am sorry not trying to make it seem like i am attacking you, but do you know how hard it is to quit smoking?
my grandpa smoked everyday for years, he quit, and did he die from lung cancer? NO, he died due to complactions of Pancriatic cancers, which have nothingto do with soking, I admit i smoke, and most of the time think it is the worst thing i have ever done, but no matter how hard I try not to, I always pick up a cig and light it before I even know I did it. but banning them will not help anyone,
want me to prove it.......
every drug is banned or controled right?.......out of every 10 Americans, 6 do drugs of some kind, and they are banned...what good would it do to ban them?
ok I dbelive that you have a right to decide not to smoke, but why not comprmise? make smoking resturants, as well as non smoking, same as bars and clubs?


hey this is the longest post by me so far.....rofl

[Reeka]

Mordenheim, so your point is that we should do nothing to prevent known causes of health hazards because we can't do something about all of the health hazards? If one were to extend this logic far enough you could justify doing nothing about anything because rarely can you do something about everything.

Even if an establishment is privately owner, if it is open to the public it has certain legal parameters within which it must operate. Are you opposed to privately owned businesses providing handicap access? That is something they must do. It is a health issue. There are people---children---who become "deathly" ill when they come into contact with cigarette smoke. I guess we could allow it and require the smoker or the proprietor of the estalishment to pay the medical costs incurred should someone be hospitalized or have to undergo medical treatment as a result of being exposed to their smoke. We alraady can hold bars responsible for someone drinking too escessively and then going out and killing someone while driving drunk (I believe this is correct, TL, correct me if I am wrong). If you run an establishment you have a responsibility to insure the health of the public who patronizes the same. I guess we should do away with the health inspectors in restaurants too? Owners have a right to serve food that is non-hygienic and make people sick?

[ 05-08-2003, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Reeka ]

[Mordenheim]

I am saying picking and choosing who to discriminate against is not a fair or right way to go. Everytime I get in a car I am at risk due to several bars that serve people way over the lmit and allow them to drive off. My air is filled with double the toxins because people like to drive a un-needed huge suv. I could go on with all the other things I as a tolerant American deal with if people want.

We have no right to force a bar or club to be smoke free. If you say we do then I argue we have EVERY right to force bars closed because they are responsible for innocent death all across this country. They have put untold children and moms and dads in the grave because people chose to be selfish. I hear none of the sympathy for those people. I hear no solutions except we "tolerate" it.

We can not have it both way's. While this ban maybe legal it is not right. I do not have to smoke to see that. The problem with this type of thinking is it is ok until it is you. Until it is a right you enjoy. Make no mistake the legal system and the choices we make will have a long impact.

[Mordenheim]

I am not going to even debunk the bar law. Anyone who has been in a bar know's what a joke that one is.

[Reeka]

StormyMystic, I do know how hard it is to quit smoking---I used to smoke. My mother smoked for 30 years and quit. Lots of people go it and quit. My best friend recently quit smoking while undergoing perhaps one of the roughest periods of his life---but he hung in there and didn't give in. Pardon me, but you have every right to endanger your health but not mine. The smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants did not work. Why? Because you can't control the air. They may have just as well NOT had the separate sections for all the good they did. You can't smoke on planes anymore. Why? Because flight attandants were getting sick. Doing drugs? Well, unless you are smoking weed around me, it really will not effect me. You have a right to smoke and I have a right to NOT breath your smoke and to go to ANY public place and expect that there will be a healthy atmosphere.

[Mordenheim]

I have a right to drive on roads not filled with drunks helped by a public establishment. Places that allow people over the limit to walk out the door and into a car.

All those murdered by selfish drunks demand it.

Stop driving big car's and polluting my air please.

[wellard]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Smoking is a vile disgusting habit. Your right to pollute your body ends when I'm forced to breath in the by-products of your self-destructive behaviour. Personally I feel it should be outlawed and the executives of the cigarette companies should be tried for crimes against humanity.

I agree. They are crimes against humanity. Jail em, sue em, and close their evil blood money empires down.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: BTW, in NYC shortly after the ban, a bartender kept telling a patron to put his cigarette out. The patron finally, after the fifth or sixth demand, pulled out a knife and stabbed the bartender in the heart, killing him. Now, that's horrible. The patron should have targeted the SOURCE of his angst.

If there were a total ban of smoking in pubs he would not be in there smoking!
He should have taken his angst out on the scum who lured him into being an addict. See above [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It is fundamental that I own myself. Ergo, my life is mine to risk. Now, if you want to prohibit my insurance or legal recovery based on me being stupid enough to not wear a seatbelt, that is fine. But, forcing me to strap myself in while driving is, quite literally, wrongful imprisonment.

This is a side issue, the focal point is, have you or anybody the fundamental right to (1) pollute the air I breathe creating an undeniable and immediate danger to my children’s life and me. A good subject to read up on would be the clean air case you are working on at the moment [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] I'm sure you have raised a few good points in there about the publics right to breathe fresh air over an individual or company’s right to pollute. Just apply them to this argument. (2) Remove my rights to go anywhere normally accessible to the public because I might put myself at danger due to an addict’s uncontrollable urge to spread cancer and bad smells. Is this not wrongful exclusion?


Timber once these smoking laws are brought in, within a year, pubs and cafes will be full again and not smoking would be an accepted norm. In Australia these arguments are soooo years ago [img]smile.gif[/img] society moves on to more pressing problems and people have accepted the new "lines in the sand" of where smoking is acceptable and where it is considered aggressive. One of the many benefits for smokers is that because there is a well defined line of what is acceptable they face less aggression and more sympathy from non smokers, less clashes in bars, less fights in restaurants. All in all a win win situation. Non smokers are not out to crush you, just reclaim our share of air and public space [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Reeka]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: I have a right to drive on roads not filled with drunks helped by a public establishment. Places that allow people over the limit to walk out the door and into a car. All those murdered by selfish drunks demand it. Stop driving big car's and polluting my air please.

As I stated, bar owners can be held legally responsible for those doing exactly what you mentionned. I am not pulluting your air---I don't drive a big car.

[Mordenheim]

Originally posted by Reeka: quote: Originally posted by Mordenheim: I have a right to drive on roads not filled with drunks helped by a public establishment. Places that allow people over the limit to walk out the door and into a car. All those murdered by selfish drunks demand it. Stop driving big car's and polluting my air please.

As I stated, bar owners can be held legally responsible for those doing exactly what you mentionned. I am not pulluting your air---I don't drive a big car. [/QUOTE]Yes, very rare but possible. You know though? It don' work. Like smoking and non-smoking sections. People are still dying at the same rate.

That won't work. Only way to be safe is to close down the bars. Yep

[Thorfinn]

Timber, regarding your presumed tongue-in-cheek aside, I seriously doubt there would be a revolution of arms. It would not be effective, unless the government went seriously nuts, and armed revolutions have a less than stellar record of installing a better regime. The "revolution" I foresee will be almost entirely peaceful, using the free market to make the government destroy itself, at least peaceful until the people have to deal with the violent death throes of government. Again, way OT, but I would discuss elsewhere if you like.

Now, as for the smoking ban, Timber is probably closest to my POV. I believe that we own ourselves, and that life is a series of free choices we all make. Some people will choose to do self-destructive things, and as long as they do not force others to bear the consequences, no foul. As Timber has pointed out repeatedly, people have the free choice to go into any given bar, and as Mordenhelm points out, there is nothing (other than the little problem of getting the government to grant a liquor license) to prevent people from opening a smoke-free bar. Hope y'all caught that -- the reason we don't have as many smoke-free bars as y'all might like is because government restricts the total number of bars, and bars that cater to smokers are more profitable, and can bid more for the liquor licenses. Got that -- smokers are not the enemy here, gummint is. They created the problem in the first place by limiting free entry into the market, and are seeking to "solve" the problem by pitting civilians against each other, so they never realize who the real enemy is...

People have been smoking for centuries, but not until somewhere around the last 75 years or so has our standard of living improved to the point that we had the means to actually engage in enough smoking to be significant. In the early 20th century, most people who smoked could afford no more than one bowl per day. I take that as a phenomenal success. We are no longer just struggling to get enough food to survive, we are now wealthy enough to blow a wad on stuff that harms us. Now, if only we could get gummint to get the heck out of the way of entreprenuers who are anxious to make products to compete for the money that people are blowing on self-destruction, or at least to provide an alternative means of harming oneself...