Smoking Ban

[wellard]

Originally posted by LordKathen: Mark my words, your freedom is being flushed quickly before your eyes, by method of attacking the self destructive issues first. Again, whats next?

no problem with self destructive smokers, self destructing in private. But if they smoke near my Asthmatic child of 5. it will be my duty to correct things.

anyway time for my bed... to be continued [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[WillowIX]

LordK, seat belts should be mandatory. Although you have the common sense to use yours, plenty of people thinks that seat belts is part of the interior decoration. Some people doesn´t even take time to tell their children to fasten their seat belts. Pull´em over and fine them hard. Communism? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Back to the smoking. I think MagiK makes a valid point. Ban smoking from ALL public places. If you want to smoke while shopping, do it on the street! There´s enough fume there already. If you want to smoke outside a hospital, wait until you get home.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thoran: I live in NY, which used to allow smoking and non-smoking sections in resteraunts... I didn't even realize how much nicer it was to eat in a full non-smoking resteraunt until I spent a year in LA. I'm glad they've eliminated smoking from resteraunts, however I too tend to think that Bars and Pubs are for drinking and smoking both and banning it from those sorts of establishments is going overboard. Here in Upstate I'm sure you'll just see every bar with a smoking tent out back, but in the city I suspect it could be tough on smokers.

Exactly, it is tough in the city.
1. Someone always has to stay at the table to watch purses and/or coats while smokers step outside.
2. If you take your drink w/ you to have a smoke (which is a MUST for those of us who mix drinking and smoking) then you risk Johnny Law nicking you for an open container violation.
3. Bar owners are having difficulty with people who step outside for a smoke and, either in drunken stupor or out of malice, do not return to pay their bar tab.
4. Smoking should not be something you can only do in your home.

Look, I'm all for no smoking restaurants - - and Arvon is right that the majority of taste = smell. I never smoked in restaurants when I was a full-time smoker.

Plus, the smell is disgusting. Not everyone wants to stink up their home. I have a cig every now and then with my whiskey while playing BG at my computer, but I open the window wide, light some sort of smell-good candle, and blow all smoke out the window. Who wants it on their clothes in the closet? And, if I didn't live 13 floors up, I'd just step outside. Which is what I used to do in a two-story townhome I had in Upstate NY. Even when we had friends over all smoking goes outside.

But, that is exactly why a bar is a haven for me. It's a place to go and do that stuff. Even if there is a ban, I hope they still allow cigar bars -- that serve alcohol. Do they in Upstate NY?

Look, I am all for the smoking education and the villifying of smoking done in the US. In Europe most will admit it is one health and environment issue we are much more dedicated to than most other first world folks (but it looks like Oz is pretty harsh on it, too, from Wellard's comments). But tyranny is tyranny. Just how many liberties must we let them take?

The argument that their purpose is to make laws is bunk. The government's purpose is to make the minimum amount of laws necessary to protect us from harming each other. And, yes, secondhand smoke does harm others. Which is EXACTLY why an owner should be able to choose between smoking or non-smoking for his establishment. There IS a market for both, I assure you.

Thorfinn, are you around these days? Listen, when you and the other revolutionaries are ready, let me know -- I am on board. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Desdicado: You're right there Wellard, just like the seatbelt law in the UK, people complained but it's saved thousands of lives.

This is also ignorant. 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.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by LordKathen: All I have to say is, whats next? I thought they did away with the commies in the states a while back? Sounds like Communism to me.

Sounds like common sense to me [img]tongue.gif[/img] shame you have to legislate to protect people from themselves [/QUOTE]It's a shame you get to decide what protection I need.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by harleyquinn: In my mind, there is a BIG difference between offending someone and giving someone else cancer, emphasima (sp?), and other lung diseases.

So ban smoking on the street then. Hey, maybe that IS a good idea. Make it so the ONLY place you can smoke is your home, your car (hell, on the road there's much worse threats to your lungs), or in a SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT. That way you will only be exposed to the smoke you voluntarily expose yourself to.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It's a shame you get to decide what protection I need.

If you don´t use your seat belt I would say it´s a shame he DOES NOT get to decide what protection you need. How hard is it for a person to fasten a seat belt? Everyone knows murder is wrong. So why have a law against it? Seriously, some people don´t know any better than to drive without their seat belt fastened.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by LordKathen: Mark my words, your freedom is being flushed quickly before your eyes, by method of attacking the self destructive issues first. Again, whats next?

no problem with self destructive smokers, self destructing in private. But if they smoke near my Asthmatic child of 5. it will be my duty to correct things.

anyway time for my bed... to be continued [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]1 out of 4 kids are asthmatics these days. It has been proven to be tied to industrial emissions, smog, and car exhausts. Attack the sources. Ban all industrial emissions and car exhausts.

Plus, must I, or others lucky enough to be born able to regularly and reliably fill our lungs with air (quite literally the problem and asthmatic suffers), suffer impingement of our freedom due to our society's deteriorating health? Puh-lease. If there were smoking bars and non-smoking bars and smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurants, you and your get would not need to worry about it -- it would be your choice.

And, with 1/4 of the young population suffering asthma, we can reasonably rely on the marketplace to provide non-smoking bars.\

Oh, and I've met asthmatic smokers and many asthmatic pot smokers (which also contains carcinogens). Don't know how old your kid is, (ooops) The day your kid takes up smoking, please let me know so I can have a good laugh.

[ 05-08-2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It's a shame you get to decide what protection I need.

If you don´t use your seat belt I would say it´s a shame he DOES NOT get to decide what protection you need. How hard is it for a person to fasten a seat belt? Everyone knows murder is wrong. So why have a law against it? Seriously, some people don´t know any better than to drive without their seat belt fastened. [/QUOTE]I could not disagree more. By that notion, we can now reasonably outlaw rock climbing, bungee jumping, surfing, and motorcycles. It is my life to risk, and it is not your place to judge. Murder is wrong. Suicide is not. The government telling you that you cannot take the one thing you and only you undeniably own is BULLSHIT.

Look, if we assume one owns one's self, then these limitations are simply not logical. (Btw, suicide is illegal -- has been for years.)

On the other hand, if one does not own one's self, we may go down a different path. It is called communism, and may be a viable path. But do NOT consider it freedom. Either we are free or we are not.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 1 out of 4 kids are asthmatics these days. It has been proven to be tied to industrial emissions, smog, and car exhausts. Attack the sources. Ban all industrial emissions and car exhausts. Plus, must I, or others lucky enough to be born able to regularly and reliably fill our lungs with air (quite literally the problem and asthmatic suffers), suffer impingement of our freedom due to our society's deteriorating health? Puh-lease. If there were smoking bars and non-smoking bars and smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurants, you and your get would not need to worry about it -- it would be your choice. WRONG! Asthmatics do not have problems filling their lungs contrary to popular belief. They have trouble exhaling. And if there were non-smoking restaurants available we wouldn´t have this discussion. So why aren´t there any? Oh I forgot, money. And, with 1/4 of the young population suffering asthma, we can reasonably rely on the marketplace to provide non-smoking bars.\Well that is what we can´t rely on it seems. As long as their profits weill go down from banning smokers they won´t do a thing about it unless told to do so. Oh, and I've met asthmatic smokers and many asthmatic pot smokers (which also contains carcinogens). Don't know how old your kid is, (ooops) The day your kid takes up smoking, please let me know so I can have a good laugh. Low blow Timber. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] Very low. *tsk tsk* [img]tongue.gif[/img] I won´t type what I think of asthmatic smokers or smokers who continue to smoke after they have been diagnosed with emphysemia.