Do you smoke?

[karlhenning]

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.

In my experience (prior to the strictures of the ordinances), there is quite a gap between control can be exerted voluntarily and control will be exerted — and there is the question of the degree to which volitional control can be exercised in the matter of an addiction.

[karlhenning]

So, Todd, you object to buildings which prohibit smoking within 25 feet of an entrance?  For myself, I know of no other such bans of smoking in "open public places" — apart from beaches, where the objection is more a question of smokers seeing sand, and figuring that, well, the entire beach is a big ashtray, really . . . .

[karlhenning]

. . . you'd just rather they stink like B.O.  Seriously.   

Speaking from recent experience on the T — no, actually ; )

[karlhenning]

My second-hand set of Vaughan Williams' symphonies conducted by Thomson STILL hasn't lost the strong odor of the previous owner's cologne!

Dude, that's a property of the music. Suck it up.

[Szykneij]

My second-hand set of Vaughan Williams' symphonies conducted by Thomson STILL hasn't lost the strong odor of the previous owner's cologne!

English Leather?

[Todd]

And I had not heard of cigar bars being banned.

Where I live the same people who pushed to ban new hookah lounges have made it very clear that they want to extinguish all facilities that allow indoor smoking.  They already succeeded in squeezing out one type of business going forward, so it is entirely possible, and even probable, that they can succeed in eliminating cigar bars.  Of course, where I live, plastic bags have just been banned from large retailers, and there is a group that is active in trying to ban children – ie, anyone under 18 – from buying Happy Meals or similar meals at fast restaurants.  The Left Coast is filled with people with an insatiable desire to exercise control over the lives of others.

So, Todd, you object to buildings which prohibit smoking within 25 feet of an entrance?

It depends.  If such a ban is purely on private property, I have no problem with it at all.  If it extends out to public property, I do. 

[Brahmsian]

Where I live the same people who pushed to ban new hookah lounges have made it very clear that they want to extinguish all facilities that allow indoor smoking.  They already succeeded in squeezing out one type of business going forward, so it is entirely possible, and even probable, that they can succeed in eliminating cigar bars.  Of course, where I live, plastic bags have just been banned from large retailers, and there is a group that is active in trying to ban children – ie, anyone under 18 – from buying Happy Meals or similar meals at fast restaurants.  The Left Coast is filled with people with an insatiable desire to exercise control over the lives of others.

  Oh boy!  That is excessive, indeed.  No Happy Meals???  I'm all for not encouraging anyone to eat at McDonald's every single day, but??  Talk about removing any parental responsibility. 

[karlhenning]

Yikes.

Anyway, it's probably about time to remind everyone that pointing to fringe extremists does not invalidate sane regulation.  And, sorry all you cancer-stick-suckers, but banning smoking from airplanes, restaurants and workplaces is mere sanity. Mens sana in corpore sano . . . .

[Brahmsian]

Yikes.

Anyway, it's probably about time to remind everyone that pointing to fringe extremists does not invalidate sane regulation.  And, sorry all you cancer-stick-suckers, but banning smoking from airplanes, restaurants and workplaces is mere sanity. Mens sana in corpore sano . . . .

Karl, calm yourself down!!  Just joking.     Go to the golden arches and buy yourself a McHappy Meal - you'll feel better (initially.....then you'll feel like crap).  Hah! 

[Todd]

but banning smoking from airplanes, restaurants and workplaces is mere sanity.

For the most part I agree, with the obvious exception of workplaces where smoking is the entire reason for such a place to exist.  Such places are rare.  I would even go so far as to say that banning smoking anywhere on a medical facility campus is reasonable.  But things can, will, and do go too far.  For instance, various public colleges and universities are looking to ban smoking on campuses.  Well, I'm a non-smoking taxpayer, and I find such an idea ludicrous. 

[karlhenning]

For the most part I agree, with the obvious exception of workplaces where smoking is the entire reason for such a place to exist.  Such places are rare.  I would even go so far as to say that banning smoking anywhere on a medical facility campus is reasonable.  But things can, will, and do go too far.  For instance, various public colleges and universities are looking to ban smoking on campuses.  Well, I'm a non-smoking taxpayer, and I find such an idea ludicrous.

Against that, there is the objection of dedicating state resources (space, cleaning) to an area which can be used only by people suffering from an elective addiction.

[Bulldog]

Yikes.

Anyway, it's probably about time to remind everyone that pointing to fringe extremists does not invalidate sane regulation.  And, sorry all you cancer-stick-suckers, but banning smoking from airplanes, restaurants and workplaces is mere sanity. Mens sana in corpore sano . . . .

All three of them? 

[DavidW]

Wow Todd that sounds like you in San Francisco!

This reminds me of Davis, CA (I went to college there).  They built a special tunnel for frogs (I'm sharing this because it seems like a very similar liberal feel good project at the tax payer's expense) to use so they don't get run over crossing the road.  Well story has it at the inauguration, they pushed a frog into the tunnel, and it was a very hot day... and well... the frog sizzled!

[karlhenning]

Wow Todd that sounds like you in San Francisco!

This reminds me of Davis, CA (I went to college there).  They built a special tunnel for frogs (I'm sharing this because it seems like a very similar liberal feel good project at the tax payer's expense) to use so they don't get run over crossing the road.  Well story has it at the inauguration, they pushed a frog into the tunnel, and it was a very hot day... and well... the frog sizzled!

Not sure whether to laugh or cringe!

The good news is: I've never heard a restaurant patron yet complain that the air in the place was too fresh ; )

[Todd]

Against that, there is the objection of dedicating state resources (space, cleaning) to an area which can be used only by people suffering from an elective addiction.

Ah, yes, the resource issue.  And just how resource intensive are such functions?  The state dedicating state resources to menial or meaningless tasks is something the state does exceedingly well. 

Incidentally, non-smokers have full use of smoking facilities, they just choose not to use them.  That's markedly different from the situation smokers face.

Wow Todd that sounds like you in San Francisco!

Nah, I live north of there.

[eyeresist]

I do think that stopping smoking-specific venues is ridiculous. Certainly hard to reconcile with the advocates' presumable support for supervised injecting centres for junkies (which I do favour, BTW).

[ibanezmonster]

The whole world should just follow Portugal when it comes to drugs:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization#comments

But, nah, let's not think about what's actually best, lets, uh... hmmm.... i don't know... 

[Karl Henning]

The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn't

[Jaakko Keskinen]

"Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times." - Mark Twain.

Thread duty: no, never have smoked. Quite lucky considering how addicted I am to Pepsi and Coke.

[Karl Henning]

I'm the only one from among my brothers and sisters who never acquired the habit.  No, that's not true:  neither the eldest nor youngest fell prey to the vice which my father modeled