Do you smoke?

[zamyrabyrd]

As Sarge points out, the mere act of partaking of liquor does not affect those in your vicinity; but of smoking does.  Arguing for smoking in public, because the intoxicating effects of liquor can be objectionable, is a non sequitur.

I am not arguing for smoking in public but saying that control can be exerted voluntarily without the Big Brother or Big Nanny Sister stepping in. The unsuccessful campaign against smoking foisted on by the government is disingenous, saying that is is bad for you! Those who smoke are not going to read the warnings on cig packs anyway, no matter how big or graphic. Well, plenty of other things are just as bad, maybe even worse, much worse, aided and abetted by the government itself.

ZB

[mc ukrneal]

I am not arguing for smoking in public but saying that control can be exerted voluntarily without the Big Brother or Big Nanny Sister stepping in. The unsuccessful campaign against smoking foisted on by the government is disingenous, saying that is is bad for you! Those who smoke are not going to read the warnings on cig packs anyway, no matter how big or graphic. Well, plenty of other things are just as bad, maybe even worse, much worse, aided and abetted by the government itself.

ZB

I'll just say that the ban is more connected to protecting non-smokers from smokers than it is to protecting themselves.  Just like DUI/DWI laws are more for the protection of the general public than it is for the health of the driver. Although having said that, it was also passed in restaurants for the protection of the servers, who were at risk in their job.  I would agree that an existing smoker might not be pursuaded by the packaging. But perhaps a new smoker would.

You seem to be against government intervention for any reason, and I think that is the topic you are really addressing. It is not an uninteresting topic - perhaps in its own thread?

Funny though how this interesting conversation ended up in the Borders thread.

[Todd]

I'll just say that the ban is more connected to protecting non-smokers from smokers than it is to protecting themselves.

Not really.  The intent of smoking bans is ultimately to ban smoking everywhere.  Where I live some "hookah lounges" have been around for a while that have as their sole purpose selling tobacco for consumption on premises.  All customers and workers understand this before stepping foot in the door.  But the anti-smoking crusaders were not happy with that.  So now no new such establishments will be allowed in the state going forward.  That goes beyond protecting poor, poor innocent bystanders and straight to sanctimonious ideology where taking away the ability of people to engage in a heretofore legal activity is somehow deemed a good thing, and I predict that someone, somewhere will try to make this appear to be an expansion of liberty rather than a reduction of it.  Throw in widening bans on smoking in open public places, and even attempts to close down evil - nay, downright wicked - cigar bars, and the real goal is clear.  Public health is a perfect excuse for stripping people of rights because it sounds so reasonable, so economic, and so righteous all at once.  I have no problems with banning smoking in most enclosed public places, but at some point it's time for non-smokers to just suck it up.

[Brahmsian]

Not really.  The intent of smoking bans is ultimately to ban smoking everywhere.  Where I live some "hookah lounges" have been around for a while that have as their sole purpose selling tobacco for consumption on premises.  All customers and workers understand this before stepping foot in the door.  But the anti-smoking crusaders were not happy with that.  So now no new such establishments will be allowed in the state going forward.  That goes beyond protecting poor, poor innocent bystanders and straight to sanctimonious ideology where taking away the ability of people to engage in heretofore legal is somehow deemed a good thing, and I predict that someone, somewhere will try to make this appear to be an expansion of liberty rather than a reduction of it.  Throw in widening bans on smoking in open public places, and even attempts to close down evil - nay, downright wicked - cigar bars, and the real goal is clear.  Public health is a perfect excuse for stripping people of rights because it sounds so reasonable, so economic, and so righteous all at once.  I have no problems with banning smoking in most enclosed public places, but at some point it's time for non-smokers to just suck it up.

The rights of smokers will continue to dwindle further an further.  I understand this.  I know prohibition will never work, but you almost wonder - what's the point of allowing it if it is so bad (not just to smokers, but to others)?  And if they say they pay out more in health costs than they collect in taxes from sales of cigarettes?

I think with prohibition, the majority of law abiding citizens who do smoke, would indeed quit for good - knowing it was illegal.  Perhaps naive thinking on part, I do realize.

[Todd]

And if they say they pay out more in health costs than they collect in taxes from sales of cigarettes?

This is a terrifying inquiry.  Are we to judge the value of all liberty using a ledger?

[Brahmsian]

This is a terrifying inquiry.  Are we to judge the value of all liberty using a ledger?

I'm not saying whether it is right or wrong, Todd.  I personally think that non-smokers rights are more than adequate as they are right now (at least in Canada).

[DavidW]

I think with prohibition, the majority of law abiding citizens who do smoke, would indeed quit for good - knowing it was illegal.  Perhaps naive thinking on part, I do realize.

Because you know that worked with alcohol and continues to work wonderfully for pot and meth!

[Brahmsian]

Because you know that worked with alcohol and continues to work wonderfully for pot and meth!

Well, it doesn't work that well.  However, don't you think more people would smoke pot, if it were considered perfect legal?

[Brahmsian]

Cost of a bullet: Pennies on the Dollar.

Cost of cancer: Thousands on the Dollar.

Well then - the answer is simple.   Death by firing squad to all smokers!  Or, no cancer care treatment.

[Todd]

I'm not saying whether it is right or wrong, Todd.

I understand that, I was simply making a point.  I've heard your question turned into serious arguments multiple times, as though everything can or should be determined using such an analysis. 

[DavidW]

Well, it doesn't work that well.  However, don't you think more people would smoke pot, if it were considered perfect legal?

Yeah because it would then be cheaper and more easily available.  I can already see people lined up for the walmart brand!

[Todd]

Cost of a bullet: Pennies on the Dollar.

Whoa there, not always true!  Custom 454 Casull ammo, for instance, can be quite pricey.

[Todd]

However, don't you think more people would smoke pot, if it were considered perfect legal?

There would be a short term increase of some notable size, followed by a gradual decline in usage to a level above, but not significantly above, current levels.  Pot is illegal.  It is not hard to get, and it is not expensive.  Or so I've heard . . .

[eyeresist]

I find the smoke itself so obnoxious that it is hard to care about the rights of the emitters to emit.

I also feel this way about strong perfume or aftershave.

[Mn Dave]

I also feel this way about strong perfume or aftershave.

Amen!

[Brahmsian]

I also feel this way about strong perfume or aftershave.

So true!  Some people just cake it on so much, you'd just rather they stink like B.O.  Seriously.   

[eyeresist]

My second-hand set of Vaughan Williams' symphonies conducted by Thomson STILL hasn't lost the strong odor of the previous owner's cologne! Honestly, was it meant to be some sort of burglar deterrent or something? My feelings when reaching down that set are quite Pavlovian.

[zamyrabyrd]

I find the smoke itself so obnoxious that it is hard to care about the rights of the emitters to emit.
I also feel this way about strong perfume or aftershave.

Very good point, where does it stop when anything deemed offensive or even irritating can be prohibited legally? The trough is so wide that whoever has the biggest mouth or wallet can trump the rights of minorities, the opposite of what was intended in the first place. Plenty of things are best sorted out without government interference like bullying in schools and what constitutes hate speech short of outright racism or sedition. There's always the hypothetical victim who might be scandalized by innocent satire or anything religious, so self-censorship becomes the norm and speech becomes bland and boring.

I'm sorry but the example given of a woman who only had "skills" to work in a club that contributed to her cancer because of being exposed to smoke is a bit disingenous.  So clubs have to become smokefree in order to protect another hypothetical victim? Developing other "skills" would have been the conclusion when logic was a little more widespread than it is now. Well, other workplaces have their dangers too like coal mines. 

How about inhaling hairspray or ethylene in petrol stations? And some people are allergic to alcohol based scents. Shouldn't they be also prohibited to protect the rights of someone who may go into prophylactic shock? How about a bubble zone around people who wear strong smelling eau de cologne?

ZB

[eyeresist]

Very good point, where does it stop when anything deemed offensive or even irritating can be prohibited legally?

No, that's the opposite of what I meant. I'd like to ban strong perfume and aftershave too! I think my right to not be irritated should trump someone else's right to irritate me.

[mc ukrneal]

Not really.  The intent of smoking bans is ultimately to ban smoking everywhere.  Where I live some "hookah lounges" have been around for a while that have as their sole purpose selling tobacco for consumption on premises.  All customers and workers understand this before stepping foot in the door.  But the anti-smoking crusaders were not happy with that.  So now no new such establishments will be allowed in the state going forward.  That goes beyond protecting poor, poor innocent bystanders and straight to sanctimonious ideology where taking away the ability of people to engage in a heretofore legal activity is somehow deemed a good thing, and I predict that someone, somewhere will try to make this appear to be an expansion of liberty rather than a reduction of it.  Throw in widening bans on smoking in open public places, and even attempts to close down evil - nay, downright wicked - cigar bars, and the real goal is clear.  Public health is a perfect excuse for stripping people of rights because it sounds so reasonable, so economic, and so righteous all at once.  I have no problems with banning smoking in most enclosed public places, but at some point it's time for non-smokers to just suck it up.

I had not realized that some states were so activist. Banning it outside seems odd to me, although sometimes when I walk outside, someone's smoke might float my way. And I had not heard of cigar bars being banned. Where is all this 'sin' happening?