- This topic has 4 voices and 18 replies.
-
Posts
-
A Letter to America: Americans deserve better than the European model that Barack Obama is trying to implement, this is perhaps one of the best editorials about what it will mean for America if the Democrats have their way I have ever read. Living in Europe I can tell you that he is spot on when it comes to talking about how the people have no voice when it comes to issues of any import. The people are thrown enough carrots that they think they have a say while the self-anointed elite go on about their business as if the proles do not matter, which they do not in truth.The people are allowed to vote on such earth-shaking issues as banning smoking in bars but when it comes to how their tax money is spent they are impotent and do not even seem to realize it. The recent debate in Germany about welfare reform was about how much welfare benefits would rise and not how to encourage people to get off welfare in the first place. The entire population of Europe has been lulled by the forms of popular government without the reality. America is rapidly moving that way. If that happens, where will we find freedom in the world?
It always gets me that while smoking has been eliminated in almost all public place now, the push for legalization of marijuana is still strong. I'm not sure that cigarette smoking is a black and white right/left debate, but I imagine that the people leading the charge for such bans are on the left. Just a few years ago, in the city where I was living, a group of kids got together (likely under the supervision of some left-leaning adult) and got a city ordinance passed which outlawed the sale of candy cigarettes. I don't think there was any opposition voiced to the ordinance as it went through the city council, naturally because of the lack of a candy cigarette lobby. The kids of course got pats on their backs because they "did their part" in helping prevent kids from moving on to smoking, but I thought this was a blatant expansion of the Nanny State. If I had the time/resources, I might consider blatantly violating the ordinance simply so that I could challenge it in court. This is the kind of thing we see in America nowadays. Kids thinking it's a good idea to have the government dip its fingers into more and more things, being justified by the fact that it supports some paradisaical left-wing world view.
I'm not sure that cigarette smoking is a black and white right/left debate
It's not
but I imagine that the people leading the charge for such bans are on the left.
I think it's people who are concerned with their health and not wanting people to blow smoke in their faces.
Kids thinking it's a good idea to have the government dip its fingers into more and more things, being justified by the fact that it supports some paradisaical left-wing world view.
Which is probably what they're taught in public schools
Well, I for one am not a smoker, and some of my most miserable days living in an apartment have been when cigarette smoke from a neighboring apartment would creep into mine. I can't say I am upset that the places where smoking occurs has been curtailed significantly, but at the same time I don't think I would be on the front lines advocating such bans. Oh, and I also "smoked" candy cigarettes when I was a kid. Go figure.
I think it is a crying shame that we dont let businesses decide if they want a smoking establishment or not. I remember that there were some restaurants that did not allow smoking in Temple, TX before the city imposed a ban in 2007.And yes, I am a smoker.
Because it's similar to food safety.
Bull hockey. I don't object to the owner of an establishment telling me I cannot smoke in his facility. I object to the government telling me what I can and cannot do in a private establishment. I do not smoke in my own house and I certainly respect the right of another person telling me to not smoke in their restaurant, store, house, etc. But specious arguments about possible health consequences and other stuff are just another example of government control. Non-smokers certainly have the right to not patronize establishment that allow smoking just as a smoker has the right to not patronize non-smoking establishments. Are you going to tell me you are free-market guy in everything but this?The bottom line in the anti-smoking crusade is that its adherents find smoking offensive and want to control the choices smokers are allowed to make. I challenge you to name another product besides alcohol and cigarettes that are punitively taxed to the same level to pay for social engineering type programs because a segment of society finds those products objectionable? I would guess that we will shortly see punitive type taxes on sugary drinks and candy if the anti-obesity crusaders have their way.
The bottom line in the anti-smoking crusade is that its adherents find smoking offensive and want to control the choices smokers are allowed to make.
No it's not. The anti-smoking "crusade" is because it IS unhealthy to non-smokers. This has been talked about here before I think and my position was also about my rights...my right to not inhale someone elses cigarette smoke. Why should I have to move or go to a different restaurant or sit on another park bench if a smoker sits next to me? Yeah, there's nothing like biking for 20 miles and taking a break on the bench when some jerk sits next to me and lights up. So now I have to move to another spot to get away from it?!? My rights to breathing clean air have been infringed, but if I want to ban it I am anti-capitalist? I don't think so.So does the non-smoker have to just deal with it?
I'm not compromising.Yeah, you have the right to quit. So what is it now, like $8/pack? Do you like giving the Federal gov't all that extra money?
In my opinion, there are rough edges of society that some people just have to deal with. Now, who should have to “deal with it” – the smoker lighting up on a park bench, or the non-smoking person just sitting there? Either answer will lead to the contentment of the other. I would think that the reasonable answer would be that the first activity done there would have precedence; if the person was smoking, the non-smoker should find another place. If the person was not smoking, then the smoker should go elsewhere to light up.But this falls more to common sense and etiquette than anything else. One thing is for sure, though - I don't think it takes a government regulation to come up with some answer.
I'm not compromising.Yeah, you have the right to quit. So what is it now, like $8/pack? Do you like giving the Federal gov't all that extra money?
Tobacco is a legal product right? Then why do non-smokers insist on attempting to inflict their standards on me. Lastly, how is the anti-smoking position any different in essence that that of pro-choicers? Both want to inflict their views on others. One side wants me to change my lifestyle because they dont like the habit and the other wants to kill babies regardless of the rights of the baby. In both cases rights trampled, the smokers freedom to partake of a legal product and the babies right to live.I got it, you dont like smoking. I am not one of those jerks that will blow smoke at anti-smoking types but at the same time I do positively despise the self-righteousness of anti-smoking zealots.
Alcohol's legal too, but you're not allowed to drive drunk. Why? Because it puts your own and other people's lives in danger. Cigarette smoking is exactly the same thing.
And smokers have no rights? ???
Of course they do, they have the right to smoke when there is no one around them. I'm 100% with skiguy on this; every individuals rights end at the point they infringe upon other people's rights and as soon as your exhale that lungful of smokey goodness you infringe upon the rights of everyone around you. If smoking was something you could do without effecting the people around you I couldn't care less but since it's not I'm all for a ban on smoking in public places. It has nothing to do with imposing my belief on smoking upon anyone and everthing to do with wanting to live a smoke free life.
Alcohol's legal too, but you're not allowed to drive drunk. Why? Because it puts your own and other people's lives in danger. Cigarette smoking is exactly the same thing.
I think it has been pretty well proven that being struck by a car is dangerous. Despite what I know you will claim, I have not seen incontrovertible evidence about secondhand smoke. Heck, I even saw an article not to long ago about the dangers of 3rd hand smoke, whatever that is.So essentially both you guys believe that smokers have less rights than non-smokers? Just trying to be sure where you are coming from on this.
