PDA

View Full Version : If you love liberty, vote NO on this smoking ban poll for business owners




Pages : [1] 2

vechorik
03-08-2012, 10:24 AM
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20120308/OPINION01/203080312

angelatc
03-08-2012, 10:36 AM
Good luck with that. The smoking Nazis won't go away - every time they lose the vote, they just bring it up again and again. I wish the Republicans were as persistent as the leftist special interest groups.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 10:42 AM
It has NOTHING to do with how many do not smoke or how many want to ban smoking. The argument should come down to only one thing. Property rights. Unfortunately, angelatc is correct. The 'public' believes that if your personal property is 'open' to the public it is therefore their property.
Good luck. At one time tobacco was king in N.C. Then a bunch of northern libs moved here and took away private property rights.

_pauladin_
03-08-2012, 10:45 AM
I voted. I'm surprised at how many "yes" votes there are, though. Don't people get that all this would do is hurt the businesses, hurt the customers, and increase law enforcement costs? Everyone loses.

vechorik
03-08-2012, 10:49 AM
I voted. I'm surprised at how many "yes" votes there are, though. Don't people get that all this would do is hurt the businesses, hurt the customers, and increase law enforcement costs? Everyone loses.

People don't see the property rights issue at all.
Smoking is bad. Let's ban it is all they can see. No deep thinkers. Not enough education of the Constitution.
This smoke-free ban is already in effect in many cities. This current push is to make it a state-wide law.

_pauladin_
03-08-2012, 11:01 AM
People don't see the property rights issue at all.
Smoking is bad. Let's ban it is all they can see. No deep thinkers. Not enough education of the Constitution.
This smoke-free ban is already in effect in many cities. This current push is to make it a state-wide law.

People definitely don't get personal liberty, but I was writing from a free market perspective, which should be a little more obvious to people.

Businesses under a smoking ban:
- Lose smoking customers
- Get hit with fines

Customers under smoking ban:
- Smokers either stay home or can't smoke
- Quality suffers to cover businesses' lost money, and/or
- Prices go up to cover businesses' lost money

Law enforcement under smoking ban:
- State has to hire more cops and bureaucrats to enforce the ban, and/or
- State has to take resources away from useful law enforcement to enforce the ban

Tod
03-08-2012, 11:09 AM
Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

oyarde
03-08-2012, 11:10 AM
How can anyone who is of right mind think govt should determine if a business allows smoking or not ??

pcosmar
03-08-2012, 11:11 AM
Won't load the poll for me.
http://www.clarionledger.com/graphics/ajax_loading_big.gif

But I expect that we are outnumbered by idiots.
Democracy fail.

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 11:17 AM
It has NOTHING to do with how many do not smoke or how many want to ban smoking. The argument should come down to only one thing. Property rights. Unfortunately, angelatc is correct. The 'public' believes that if your personal property is 'open' to the public it is therefore their property.
Good luck. At one time tobacco was king in N.C. Then a bunch of northern libs moved here and took away private property rights.

What they are really trying to do is to claim your Body as Property. This is nothing more than Socialism 101. To say that I can put something that you own up for sale up on the Internet, but you gave no permission for anyone to sell your stuff. They seem to believe that the "Public" has a "Right" to expect someone else to be a "productive member of society". That they have a "Right" to tell you what to eat because "they" have to pay for "your health benefits". Or if "they" can tell you that you are "allowed" to smoke, drink, eat sugar, salt, bacon, etc.

This is no longer a Country of Rights of the Individual, it is about everyone else claiming "Rights" to what that individual will either cost or benefit them. This has become a Nation of Priviledges. This is Socialism 101 in a Nutshell. Er, no wait, Nutshells are known to the State of Califiornia to cause cancer in Laboratory Animals, better use a Geneticly Manipulated FDA Hybrid Nut that is considered "safe", by "them", them, being the Socialist Public.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 11:23 AM
Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

The majority doesn't have the right to breathe any air inside property that they don't own.

It's about the concept of private property. Non-smokers have every right to avoid restaurants that allow smoking, but they should not have the right to tell business owners what they can and cannot allow on private property.

The rest of your post is bullshit. In Michigan, small bars and pubs are going belly up, and they say it's because of the law, which was enacted here only a couple of years ago. Only the big corporate owned entities are surviving.

donnay
03-08-2012, 11:26 AM
http://www.sott.net/image/image/s3/69762/large/Fascism1.jpg


Big Pharma wants you to Quit Smoking

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229868-Big-Pharma-wants-you-to-Quit-Smoking


Where is the 'War Against Cell Phones'? WHO guilty of hypocrisy

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229866-Where-is-the-War-Against-Cell-Phones-WHO-guilty-of-hypocrisy

Anti-smoking propaganda: Decrease in smoking causes oral cancer?

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229865-Anti-smoking-propaganda-Decrease-in-smoking-causes-oral-cancer-

Nicotine's effect on appetite identified

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229864-Nicotine-s-effect-on-appetite-identified

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 11:27 AM
Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

And here in N.C. it is much the same. Much the shame. Smoking is relegated to non-profit private businesses only. So even if a for profit private business with its own membership wanted to create a smokers establishment is is disallowed.
Before the smoking ban took place there were already businesses that catered to non-smokers. Ironically, after the change these establishments went out of business. I myself have pulled about $6k out of the local community because of this. Truth is that it doesn't matter. Non-smokers have made up for it. At what price to freedom of association though?

Tod
03-08-2012, 11:30 AM
The reason people are so willing to toss the property rights out the window is merely because smokers are so willing to be inconsiderate of non-smokers, plain and simple. That a smoker would even consider lighting up indoors is to me the height of boorishness, but yet they do it (did it here in Ohio) all the time. A whole lot of people have had secondhand smoke blown their way for far too long. Get up and leave? I'm half-way through my dinner and when I started there were no smokers. Did the smoker ask if I minded? No, they never do. Their stupid addiction should be their problem and non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer alongside. To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Don't blame the non-smokers for this, blame the smokers for being such boors.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 11:32 AM
You have a duty to the State to remain as healthy as possible, for war service, war production and financial gain of the banking elite that rule you.

All of you smokers are reported.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 11:34 AM
The reason people are so willing to toss the property rights out the window is merely because smokers are so willing to be inconsiderate of non-smokers, plain and simple. That a smoker would even consider lighting up indoors is to me the height of boorishness, but yet they do it (did it here in Ohio) all the time. A whole lot of people have had secondhand smoke blown their way for far too long. Get up and leave? I'm half-way through my dinner and when I started there were no smokers. Did the smoker ask if I minded? No, they never do. Their stupid addiction should be their problem and non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer alongside. To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Don't blame the non-smokers for this, blame the smokers for being such boors.

So then you would have no problem with a "smoking only" or "smoking permitted here" establishment, alongside establishments where smoking is prohibited?

FrancisMarion
03-08-2012, 11:34 AM
My municipality has not passed an ordinance on this thankfully. Isn't there also funds that come down from larger gov't that is contingent on these type of bans?

angelatc
03-08-2012, 11:35 AM
The reason people are so willing to toss the property rights out the window is merely because smokers are so willing to be inconsiderate of non-smokers, plain and simple. That a smoker would even consider lighting up indoors is to me the height of boorishness, but yet they do it (did it here in Ohio) all the time. A whole lot of people have had secondhand smoke blown their way for far too long. Get up and leave? I'm half-way through my dinner and when I started there were no smokers. Did the smoker ask if I minded? No, they never do. Their stupid addiction should be their problem and non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer alongside. To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Don't blame the non-smokers for this, blame the smokers for being such boors.

Blah blah blah. When I grew up we could smoke in elevators and movie theatres. Nobody gave a crap, and asthma and allergies were practically non-existent. Your generation is whiny, selfish, and endlessly needy - they're the real boors. And I'm not just saying that. Your use of the word indicates that you don't actually understand the fine nuances of real etiquette, which means that a host is obliged to cater to all the whims and desires of all his guests, while his other guests don't criticize the behavior of anybody else. And for the record, asking someone to step outside to smoke is actually the epitome of boorishness.


To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Sure, that's why democracy sucks. You've avoided the real issue, which is why the actual property owner and the minority don't have any rights.

donnay
03-08-2012, 11:35 AM
The reason people are so willing to toss the property rights out the window is merely because smokers are so willing to be inconsiderate of non-smokers, plain and simple. That a smoker would even consider lighting up indoors is to me the height of boorishness, but yet they do it (did it here in Ohio) all the time. A whole lot of people have had secondhand smoke blown their way for far too long. Get up and leave? I'm half-way through my dinner and when I started there were no smokers. Did the smoker ask if I minded? No, they never do. Their stupid addiction should be their problem and non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer alongside. To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Don't blame the non-smokers for this, blame the smokers for being such boors.

That sounds like group-think to me.

How about posting laws for those who wear stinky perfume next? :rolleyes:

pcosmar
03-08-2012, 11:37 AM
All of you smokers are reported.

Got a Light?

http://www.conch-cigars.com/images/fullsize/108-PetitCuban-S-Lg1.jpg

Tod
03-08-2012, 11:39 AM
Blah blah blah. When I grew up we could smoke in elevators and movie theatres. Nobody gave a crap, and asthma and allergies were practically non-existent. Your generation is whiny, selfish, and endlessly needy - they're the real boors.

When I'm sitting in a theater, I'm not filling the air that you breathe with noxious fumes. The smokers are. Their "rights" to blow smoke end at my nose, just as surely as their "rights" to swing their fists ends at my nose.

LOL....how old do you think I and the people I'm talking about are?

donnay
03-08-2012, 11:45 AM
When I'm sitting in a theater, I'm not filling the air that you breathe with noxious fumes. The smokers are. Their "rights" to blow smoke end at my nose, just as surely as their "rights" to swing their fists ends at my nose.

LOL....how old do you think I and the people I'm talking about are?

But if a theater owner wants to allow smoking, that should be their decision not the town/city/state.

In a truly free market this would happen. If they don't like smoke, they can go to the theater who prohibits it.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 11:45 AM
When I'm sitting in a theater, I'm not filling the air that you breathe with noxious fumes. The smokers are. Their "rights" to blow smoke end at my nose, just as surely as their "rights" to swing their fists ends at my nose.

LOL....how old do you think I and the people I'm talking about are?

Again, you don't have any right to breathe the air inside the theatre - it is private property. If the property owners chooses to allow people to smoke on his property, you have the right to stay the hell home.

I'm guessing you're in your 20's - 30's. The children of the "ME!" generation are a nasty lot.

Tod
03-08-2012, 11:48 AM
Blah blah blah. When I grew up we could smoke in elevators and movie theatres. Nobody gave a crap, and asthma and allergies were practically non-existent. Your generation is whiny, selfish, and endlessly needy - they're the real boors. And I'm not just saying that. Your use of the word indicates that you don't actually understand the fine nuances of real etiquette, which means that a host is obliged to cater to all the whims and desires of all his guests, while his other guests don't criticize the behavior of anybody else. And for the record, asking someone to step outside to smoke is actually the epitome of boorishness.

Sure, that's why democracy sucks. You've avoided the real issue, which is why the actual property owner and the minority don't have any rights.

Again, I would have absolutely no problem with smokers if they could keep their smoke to themselves. They are free to smoke all they want so long as they don't allow their pollution to affect me. What is so hard to understand about that?

Okay, so another approach would be to allow smoking, but then be able to sue smokers for the pollution they cause. Yeah, that would be better. /sarcasm.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 11:52 AM
People fart.

I demand a fart free environment.

You have no right to force me to breathe air that is contaminated by your ass gas.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 11:53 AM
Again, I would have absolutely no problem with smokers if they could keep their smoke to themselves. They are free to smoke all they want so long as they don't allow their pollution to affect me. What is so hard to understand about that?

Okay, so another approach would be to allow smoking, but then be able to sue smokers for the pollution they cause. Yeah, that would be better. /sarcasm.

Are smoking only establishments acceptable?

_pauladin_
03-08-2012, 11:53 AM
But if a theater owner wants to allow smoking, that should be their decision not the town/city/state.

In a truly free market this would happen. If they don't like smoke, they can go to the theater who prohibits it.

This.

Tod
03-08-2012, 11:54 AM
Again, you don't have any right to breathe the air inside the theatre - it is private property. If the property owners chooses to allow people to smoke on his property, you have the right to stay the hell home.

And you can stay home with your pollution since you are unable to keep it to yourself when out in public.




I'm guessing you're in your 20's - 30's. The children of the "ME!" generation are a nasty lot.

Well, you're guessing wrong. I'm 50 and many of the people who believe as I do....that I have a right to expect you to keep your pollution to yourself.....are in their 60's and older.


It is more about the fact that smokers can't keep their pollution to themselves than it is about property rights. Smokers violate my property rights by blowing smoke into my face.

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 11:55 AM
This probably isnt the most Libertarian thing of me to say, but one thing that might be considered is the specific type of place and service provided. People dont go to the hospital because they WANT to, they usually end up there because they have NO CHOICE. No Smoking in a Hospital, reasonable. No smoking within 10 miles of a Hospital, regardless if you just happen to own a home 9.75 miles away from the Hospital, unreasonable. Why? In a situation like that, a Hospital could claim that all property, regardless if Private, Public, owned by Someone Else, or Not at All to be their own and they expect jurisdiction over someone elses property.

What about theaters and bars? Privately owned is only Part of the Answer. No one has a NEED to go to the Bar, or Theater. The Decision to smoke on that property should be up to the property owner because there is no actual NEED to go to places like this. Hospital is a little different because people only go when they NEED to, but jurisdiction ends at their property line. What about Public Property? This can be based on Quantity. Inside a Private Business, someone else has No Right to tell me what I can and can not do on that property unless they are the property owner. Public Property we have plenty of, and I can stay a reasonable distance from someone while having a cigarette and we can both have what we want.

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 11:56 AM
I'm guessing you're in your 20's - 30's. The children of the "ME!" generation are a nasty lot.

It aint the 20-30yrs olds that are pushing for and voting for these laws. Hell, everybody wants to say those people don't vote, so you can't blame them for these laws.
I wouldn't blame them on "leftists" either. Im sure there are plenty of "right-wing" suburbanmommies pushing for these laws.

Tod
03-08-2012, 11:56 AM
Are smoking only establishments acceptable?

Sure, I have no problem with that...

ZenBowman
03-08-2012, 12:00 PM
Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

This.

Smoking pollutes the air. Pollution is an offence on my body. A smoking ban can therefore be thought of as self-defence.

Perfectly consistent.

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 12:02 PM
It aint the 20-30yrs olds that are pushing for and voting for these laws. Hell, everybody wants to say those people don't vote, so you can't blame them for these laws.
I wouldn't blame them on "leftists" either. Im sure there are plenty of "right-wing" suburbanmommies pushing for these laws.

This is why Democracies eventually eat themselves. It would be pretty much no different than all the Christians saying something to the effect of someone else having no right to be anything OTHER than Christian because the Majority is Christian. Not that Christians actually do this, but a few here and there have that mentality.

One of the Key differences between a Republic and a Democracy is that a Republic protects the rights of the Individual against the Demands of the Majority, and the Majority is not very well informed. It doesnt help that our "Republicans" have no interest in preserving a Republic. Take MONEY for example. "Everyone wants more money". The Majority would not even think about the consequences of inflating the money supply if they were the ones to "benefit" from increasing the Quantity of Money.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:03 PM
Sure, I have no problem with that...

Freedom wins then, and we can all agree that blanket smoking bans are unjust and set a very very dangerous precedent by banning personal behavior.

Smoke free and smoking permitted establishments FTW.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:04 PM
This.

Smoking pollutes the air. Pollution is an offence on my body. A smoking ban can therefore be thought of as self-defence.

Perfectly consistent.

Tobacco is a plant.

My heating stove burns wood, a plant.

Will you ban my wood stove?

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 12:06 PM
The reason people are so willing to toss the property rights out the window is merely because smokers are so willing to be inconsiderate of non-smokers, plain and simple. That a smoker would even consider lighting up indoors is to me the height of boorishness, but yet they do it (did it here in Ohio) all the time. A whole lot of people have had secondhand smoke blown their way for far too long. Get up and leave? I'm half-way through my dinner and when I started there were no smokers. Did the smoker ask if I minded? No, they never do. Their stupid addiction should be their problem and non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer alongside. To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Don't blame the non-smokers for this, blame the smokers for being such boors.

No, I blame the non-smokers that patronize smoking establishments and then bitch and moan that people are smoking. So much so that they want ALL of society to conform to their particular beliefs.

liberty2897
03-08-2012, 12:07 PM
This probably isnt the most Libertarian thing of me to say, but one thing that might be considered is the specific type of place and service provided. People dont go to the hospital because they WANT to, they usually end up there because they have NO CHOICE. No Smoking in a Hospital, reasonable. No smoking within 10 miles of a Hospital, regardless if you just happen to own a home 9.75 miles away from the Hospital, unreasonable. Why? In a situation like that, a Hospital could claim that all property, regardless if Private, Public, owned by Someone Else, or Not at All to be their own and they expect jurisdiction over someone elses property.

What about theaters and bars? Privately owned is only Part of the Answer. No one has a NEED to go to the Bar, or Theater. The Decision to smoke on that property should be up to the property owner because there is no actual NEED to go to places like this. Hospital is a little different because people only go when they NEED to, but jurisdiction ends at their property line. What about Public Property? This can be based on Quantity. Inside a Private Business, someone else has No Right to tell me what I can and can not do on that property unless they are the property owner. Public Property we have plenty of, and I can stay a reasonable distance from someone while having a cigarette and we can both have what we want.

I would like to be able to visit hospitals and bars where people aren't coughing and sneezing some kind of nasty, life-threatening bacterial/viral infections. Can we make some laws against going out in public when you have these conditions? (not really serious here, but something to think about)

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 12:08 PM
Tobacco is a plant.

My heating stove burns wood, a plant.

Will you ban my wood stove?

Eventually they will....

http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml

Tod
03-08-2012, 12:10 PM
Tobacco is a plant.

My heating stove burns wood, a plant.

Will you ban my wood stove?

So you wouldn't mind if I put some arsenic in your drink every morning? It occurs naturally too.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 12:12 PM
This.

Smoking pollutes the air. Pollution is an offence on my body. A smoking ban can therefore be thought of as self-defence.

Perfectly consistent.

Or you could just patronize non-smoking establishments and every one is happy.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 12:14 PM
So you wouldn't mind if I put some arsenic in your drink every morning? It occurs naturally too.

Then obviously we need to ban gas engines. Al Gore assures me that dilution is not the solution and we are harming ourselves and our environment by using them.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:14 PM
And you can stay home with your pollution since you are unable to keep it to yourself when out in public.



I don't smoke, so now you're just wrong on yet another level.






Well, you're guessing wrong. I'm 50 and many of the people who believe as I do....that I have a right to expect you to keep your pollution to yourself.....are in their 60's and older.


It is more about the fact that smokers can't keep their pollution to themselves than it is about property rights. Smokers violate my property rights by blowing smoke into my face.

That's just wrong again. Your property rights aren't violated unless somebody is smoking on your property, unless of course, you think you own the world.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:16 PM
So you wouldn't mind if I put some arsenic in your drink every morning? It occurs naturally too.

Again, proving that Tod has no respect or interest in private property rights.

Tod
03-08-2012, 12:17 PM
Here's another tidbit for discussion....

Do you think an employer should have the right to tell smoking employees that they have to quit as a condition of their employment?

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 12:17 PM
Here's another tidbit for discussion....

Do you think an employer should have the right to tell smoking employees that they have to quit as a condition of their employment?

Yep. Just as I don't think Hooters should be forced to hire overweight males w/ man-boobs as waiters.

Danke
03-08-2012, 12:18 PM
Again, I would have absolutely no problem with smokers if they could keep their smoke to themselves. They are free to smoke all they want so long as they don't allow their pollution to affect me. What is so hard to understand about that?


So smokers are coming over to your house and smoking?

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 12:19 PM
Nope.
Uhm, absolutely they should.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:19 PM
This.

Smoking pollutes the air. Pollution is an offence on my body. A smoking ban can therefore be thought of as self-defence.

Perfectly consistent.

You don't have a right to breathe the air inside these establishments though - that's the whole concept of private property.

This is just more of the liberal infiltration into the forums. It's unfathomable that this conversation is even happening, much less getting support. There is no valid liberty position for banning smoking on private property.

In fact, if you can't make your case without using the word "me!" then you should really rethink it.

Tod
03-08-2012, 12:20 PM
Again, proving that Tod has no respect or interest in private property rights.

Actually, in posting that, I fully expect that Anti-Federalist would say, "Of course I mind!!! You have no right to put poison in my drink!" and to that I would reply, "Finally, we are getting somewhere! I have no right to pollute your stuff and I wouldn't think of doing it because I, unlike smokers, actually respect your right."

:)

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Here's another tidbit for discussion....

Do you think an employer should have the right to tell smoking employees that they have to quit as a condition of their employment?

Sure. Employers should have the right to hire and fire anybody they want. Same argument - private property rights.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Uhm, absolutely they should.

Yep. Corrected that. Read the question wrong.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:22 PM
Actually, in posting that, I fully expect that Anti-Federalist would say, "Of course I mind!!! You have no right to put poison in my drink!" and to that I would reply, "Finally, we are getting somewhere! I have no right to pollute your stuff and I wouldn't think of doing it because I, unlike smokers, actually respect your right."

:)

But that's making the assumption that you own the world. Again, you have no right to be inside somebody else's restaurant, and therefore have no right to breathe their air.

You have no right to pollute someone else's property, but you shouldn't get any say in what other people choose to do on theirs.

If I'm allergic to peanuts, should I have the right to make sure no restaurants serve peanuts? After all, peanut dust is a pollutant to me in that case, and one that will harm me more immediately and irreparably than occasionally being exposed to smoke will ever harm you.

Or am I just screwed out of those "rights," because the majority doesn't share my affliction?

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:25 PM
So you wouldn't mind if I put some arsenic in your drink every morning? It occurs naturally too.

That's my point.

In NH there is arsenic in the well water.

You shine it on and accept it.

That's the problem with freedom, sometimes you have to tolerate some dumb shit, to paraphrase Ron Paul.

The mitigation of every risk in life to zero, and safety uber alles will surely be the death of freedom.

Everybody needs to get over their red ass about every little thing in life and chill the fuck out.

A whiff of smoke from some tiny shreds of smoldering plant leaf ain't gonna kill you, any more than your car exhaust or ass gas or stinky perfume or frying bacon smoke will kill me.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:26 PM
Actually, in posting that, I fully expect that Anti-Federalist would say, "Of course I mind!!! You have no right to put poison in my drink!" and to that I would reply, "Finally, we are getting somewhere! I have no right to pollute your stuff and I wouldn't think of doing it because I, unlike smokers, actually respect your right."

:)

LoL - you guessed wrong.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:29 PM
Here's another tidbit for discussion....

Do you think an employer should have the right to tell smoking employees that they have to quit as a condition of their employment?

Depends on the contract.

I actually think that voluntary collective bargaining has a place in this.

I would happily join a collective bargaining contract that stated that while actively working you have the right to do that, but have no right while not "on the clock".

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:31 PM
So smokers are coming over to your house and smoking?

ON a side note, in my quest to be a gracious hostess, I always encourage people to smoke in my house even though none of us actually smoke. People running in and out is annoying, especially when we're playing cards.

Tod
03-08-2012, 12:33 PM
I don't smoke, so now you're just wrong on yet another level.






That's just wrong again. Your property rights aren't violated unless somebody is smoking on your property, unless of course, you think you own the world.

If I'm wrong, you get to suffer the consequences of clean air. :D

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:34 PM
Many locales are banning smoking in apartments and townhouses now, so you basically can't smoke in your own home.

Going back to the smell of frying bacon, let's say I'm a devout Muslim or Orthodox Jew.

That smell is an offense to me, it is wafting the molecules of forbidden meat right into my nose.

Do I have a right to tell you you can't cook a BLT in your own kitchen anymore?

Tod
03-08-2012, 12:37 PM
But that's making the assumption that you own the world. Again, you have no right to be inside somebody else's restaurant, and therefore have no right to breathe their air.

You have no right to pollute someone else's property, but you shouldn't get any say in what other people choose to do on theirs.

If I'm allergic to peanuts, should I have the right to make sure no restaurants serve peanuts? After all, peanut dust is a pollutant to me in that case, and one that will harm me more immediately and irreparably than occasionally being exposed to smoke will ever harm you.

Or am I just screwed out of those "rights," because the majority doesn't share my affliction?

It simply comes down to the fact that smokers are not considerate of the people around them and that is why the people around them have no qualms about forcing them to be considerate. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. That is the way the world works.

Philhelm
03-08-2012, 12:38 PM
The reason people are so willing to toss the property rights out the window is merely because smokers are so willing to be inconsiderate of non-smokers, plain and simple. That a smoker would even consider lighting up indoors is to me the height of boorishness, but yet they do it (did it here in Ohio) all the time. A whole lot of people have had secondhand smoke blown their way for far too long. Get up and leave? I'm half-way through my dinner and when I started there were no smokers. Did the smoker ask if I minded? No, they never do. Their stupid addiction should be their problem and non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer alongside. To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Don't blame the non-smokers for this, blame the smokers for being such boors.

^This is how we lose liberty, piece by piece. Everyone has their own little pet issue to crusade against, and when the dust finally settles, nobody can do anything. The only correct answer is to let the property owner decide.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 12:39 PM
If I'm wrong, you get to suffer the consequences of clean air. :D

You are wrong. And what is suffered is the loss of personal property rights and freedom of association.

Danke
03-08-2012, 12:41 PM
It simply comes down to the fact that smokers are not considerate of the people around them and that is why the people around them have no qualms about forcing them to be considerate. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. That is the way the world works.

And you are not very considerate of property rights.

Tod
03-08-2012, 12:42 PM
A whiff of smoke from some tiny shreds of smoldering plant leaf ain't gonna kill you, any more than your car exhaust or ass gas or stinky perfume or frying bacon smoke will kill me.

Actually, it is well-known that regularly inhaling tobacco smoke causes all kinds of health problems and lots of people die from it. I knew lots of them.

With regards to the arsenic, I wasn't talking about trace amounts, but enough to kill you. I suspect you aren't suicidal, so despite your protestations to the contrary, I'll assume your answer would be very much as I suggested.

tod evans
03-08-2012, 12:43 PM
The reason people are so willing to toss the property rights out the window is merely because smokers are so willing to be inconsiderate of non-smokers, plain and simple. That a smoker would even consider lighting up indoors is to me the height of boorishness, but yet they do it (did it here in Ohio) all the time. A whole lot of people have had secondhand smoke blown their way for far too long. Get up and leave? I'm half-way through my dinner and when I started there were no smokers. Did the smoker ask if I minded? No, they never do. Their stupid addiction should be their problem and non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer alongside. To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Don't blame the non-smokers for this, blame the smokers for being such boors.


My business is a smoking facility, if you choose not to patronize it because of that, then fine.

When the state or county passes legislation banning smoking in businesses open to the "public" then out will come the "private" business label with a penny membership fee.

There are more and more local eating and drinking establishments that have gone the "private-club" route to avoid burdensome regulations.

If non-smokers want their own "clubs" cool..........just don't bitch when smokers do too.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:45 PM
If I'm wrong, you get to suffer the consequences of clean air. :D

The consequences of losing my property rights aren't offset by that. I'm not bothered by smoke. I'm bothered by do-gooder nanny-staters.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:46 PM
It simply comes down to the fact that smokers are not considerate of the people around them and that is why the people around them have no qualms about forcing them to be considerate. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. That is the way the world works.

This is why we fail (and I'm guilty of it too).

This is the narcotic of the state.

It is just too easy to say "pass a damn law, I'm tired of ____ doing such and such or so and so."

Freedom means minding your own damn business and not poking your nose into everybody else's.

donnay
03-08-2012, 12:47 PM
So you wouldn't mind if I put some arsenic in your drink every morning? It occurs naturally too.

Did you know too much arsenic causes lung cancer?

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:48 PM
Actually, it is well-known that regularly inhaling tobacco smoke causes all kinds of health problems and lots of people die from it. I knew lots of them.

With regards to the arsenic, I wasn't talking about trace amounts, but enough to kill you. I suspect you aren't suicidal, so despite your protestations to the contrary, I'll assume your answer would be very much as I suggested.

Trace amounts of tobacco smoke won't kill you either.

Will you be banning my wood stove?

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 12:48 PM
My business is a smoking facility, if you choose not to patronize it because of that, then fine.

When the state or county passes legislation banning smoking in businesses open to the "public" then out will come the "private" business label with a penny membership fee.

There are more and more local eating and drinking establishments that have gone the "private-club" route to avoid burdensome regulations.

If non-smokers want their own "clubs" cool..........just don't bitch when smokers do too.

Unless, the non-smoking Nazis choose to disallow that as they have in N.C. ALL establishments including private membership clubs, with the exception of SOME non-profits, are considered PUBLIC establishments.

tod evans
03-08-2012, 12:50 PM
This is why we fail (and I'm guilty of it too).

This is the narcotic of the state.

It is just too easy to say "pass a damn law, I'm tired of ____ doing such and such or so and so."

Freedom means minding your own damn business and not poking your nose into everybody else's.


You must spread some rep. before giving to AF again....

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:50 PM
It simply comes down to the fact that smokers are not considerate of the people around them and that is why the people around them have no qualms about forcing them to be considerate. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. That is the way the world works.

Yeas, by all means. The government should mandate behaviors that are considered "inconsiderate." Like eating peanuts around me, if I'm allergic to them. Therefore, peanuts should be banned from all private property. Including your house. I mean, what happens if I get invited in by your spouse or your child? Your property might pollute me.

Seriously, the only argument you're left with is "too bad, so sad?" That's pathetic.

Tod
03-08-2012, 12:51 PM
And you are not very considerate of property rights.

Truism of the day: People who won't govern themselves will be governed.

Just one of those natural laws, like gravity. Whine and moan about it all you like, but it will still be true. In the case of smoking, people who insist on blowing smoke in non-smoker's faces (failing to govern themselves) will have laws written prohibiting such behavior (be governed).

Obviously, the best solution would be for a smoker to refrain from smoking where others object, but for years they have failed to follow that basic tenet of civility. Now they are paying the price of such self-indulgence (and, curiously enough, reaping benefits).

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 12:52 PM
Unless, the non-smoking Nazis choose to disallow that as they have in N.C. ALL establishments including private membership clubs, with the exception of SOME non-profits, are considered PUBLIC establishments.

Nobody forces people to go to public establishments. Gong to a Hospital, understandable, you dont really have a choice. Smoking Ban in Hospitals are acceptable, but telling someone else what they can and can not do on or with their own property is Socialism.

And just because it is "Public" does not mean you or anyone else has an Exclusive Right to it.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:52 PM
Unless, the non-smoking Nazis choose to disallow that as they have in N.C. ALL establishments including private membership clubs, with the exception of SOME non-profits, are considered PUBLIC establishments.

Yes, that's what I was going to post. Several states have "compromised" by allowing private clubs to still allow smoking, only to close that loophole in the next session. Divide and conquer.

As far as I know, all clubs are private. So that fact that some of them charge a membership fee for admittance is a moot point anyway.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:54 PM
Truism of the day: People who won't govern themselves will be governed.

Just one of those natural laws, like gravity. Whine and moan about it all you like, but it will still be true. In the case of smoking, people who insist on blowing smoke in non-smoker's faces (failing to govern themselves) will have laws written prohibiting such behavior (be governed).

Obviously, the best solution would be for a smoker to refrain from smoking where others object, but for years they have failed to follow that basic tenet of civility. Now they are paying the price of such self-indulgence (and, curiously enough, reaping benefits).

The best solution is to respect private property rights, which you have no interest in doing. Why is that? Why do you think you have the right to go into a private restaurant and demand that everybody behave as you want them to?

oyarde
03-08-2012, 12:54 PM
Tobacco is a plant.

My heating stove burns wood, a plant.

Will you ban my wood stove? Please do not give these whackos any ideas ;)

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:55 PM
Truism of the day: People who won't govern themselves will be governed.

Another truism - exerting public law on private property is fascism. Even if you're happy about it, it's evil.

Philhelm
03-08-2012, 12:56 PM
Truism of the day: People who won't govern themselves will be governed.

Just one of those natural laws, like gravity. Whine and moan about it all you like, but it will still be true. In the case of smoking, people who insist on blowing smoke in non-smoker's faces (failing to govern themselves) will have laws written prohibiting such behavior (be governed).

Obviously, the best solution would be for a smoker to refrain from smoking where others object, but for years they have failed to follow that basic tenet of civility. Now they are paying the price of such self-indulgence (and, curiously enough, reaping benefits).

Where does the property owner's wishes come into play? You don't have a right to be on their property to begin with.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 12:57 PM
Where does the property owner's wishes come into play? You don't have a right to be on their property to begin with.

He refuses to address that.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 12:58 PM
Please do not give these whackos any ideas ;)

It's already been posted and they already have that idea.

Just give it time.

It's the logical end to these smoking bans.

I'd really like an "anti" to address that bacon cooking question.

oyarde
03-08-2012, 12:58 PM
Many locales are banning smoking in apartments and townhouses now, so you basically can't smoke in your own home.

Going back to the smell of frying bacon, let's say I'm a devout Muslim or Orthodox Jew.

That smell is an offense to me, it is wafting the molecules of forbidden meat right into my nose.

Do I have a right to tell you you can't cook a BLT in your own kitchen anymore? Ahh , the smells of home are still the same as my childhood , bacon , coffee and wood smoke .

vechorik
03-08-2012, 12:59 PM
Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

You like it that business owners lost property rights?
We'll see how you like it when the government bans something in YOUR HOME.

tod evans
03-08-2012, 12:59 PM
Ahh , the smells of home are still the same as my childhood , bacon , coffee and wood smoke .

Careful the odor police will come get ya'.

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 01:00 PM
Do Dog Walkers have an Exclusive Right to a Public Dog Park? If they do, that Excludes everyone that didnt bring their Dog to the Dog Park. Exclusive Rights and Rights are very different, and Non Smokers sometimes operate on the idea they have Exclusive Rights. An Exclusive Right does exactly what it sounds like it does. It Excludes people based on certain criteria from having a Right, thus becoming a Permission and not a Right.

This is when we get into the concept of Licensing Everything. If you want to eat unhealthy food, you'd need a License so it can Exclude people without the License. The License for Food would be issued because some people believe some "other" people do not eat food "Responsibly", and due to the Socialistic Nature this country has turned towards, they may believe they have a say-so in the matter because that persons Cost of Health Care is a Burden upon them.

No Right can be Exclusive. Right to "Clean Air" is not a right because it Excludes others, whether by choice or not, deprives them of the Same Right to be in the opposite type of enviornment.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 01:00 PM
Ahh , the smells of home are still the same as my childhood , bacon , coffee and wood smoke .

All prohibited.

Banned.

And reported.

See Something Say Something.

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 01:01 PM
All prohibited.

Banned.

And reported.

See Something Say Something.

You mean Smell. Smell Something Say Something.

oyarde
03-08-2012, 01:01 PM
Today , I changed up , had fried ham with my coffee , eggs and sausage gravy and it was so warm last night , I did not build a fire. Now , I have to leave the woods and burn some $4 gas and go to work .

Danke
03-08-2012, 01:02 PM
People fart.

I demand a fart free environment.

You have no right to force me to breathe air that is contaminated by your ass gas.

I bet donnay could get behind that rule. Sailor farts, I can't imagine.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:02 PM
Nobody forces people to go to public establishments. Gong to a Hospital, understandable, you dont really have a choice. Smoking Ban in Hospitals are acceptable, but telling someone else what they can and can not do on or with their own property is Socialism.

And just because it is "Public" does not mean you or anyone else has an Exclusive Right to it.

Depends on if the hospital is public or private. But, with regards to what I deem 'public', such as courthouses, city/state transportation, city/state amusement halls etc. I have no problem with a smoking ban.
The only problem I have is when the local bar that I have been going to for 30 years suddenly has to ban smoking even though the MAJORITY of its patrons were smokers.

oyarde
03-08-2012, 01:03 PM
Think I will have a smoke on the way. I plan to quit soon , but all of you are free to smoke at my place even after I quit , I am a Liberty Lover like that.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 01:04 PM
I bet donnay could get behind that rule. Sailor farts, I can't imagine.

One word:

Gruesome.

Tod
03-08-2012, 01:08 PM
As people of Libertarian bent, there would be no public hospitals, so of course those who argue for banning smoking in hospitals because one has no "choice" to be there just got that argument shot down...it would be private property. In fact, except for maybe some VA hospitals, are there any public hospitals?

Tod
03-08-2012, 01:10 PM
Depends on if the hospital is public or private. But, with regards to what I deem 'public', such as courthouses, city/state transportation, city/state amusement halls etc. I have no problem with a smoking ban.
The only problem I have is when the local bar that I have been going to for 30 years suddenly has to ban smoking even though the MAJORITY of its patrons were smokers.

What is a city/state amusement hall? I'm not familiar with that term.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:12 PM
One word:

Gruesome.

Smoked oysters. If you ever wanted to clear a berth and have the hatch locked behind you so you could watch the video that you wanted to instead of what the MAJORITY wanted. ;)

donnay
03-08-2012, 01:13 PM
The Smoking Scare De-Bunked

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/507927406-7466.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=11


Tobacco is loaded with b-17 too.

https://www.sott.net/articles/show/231909-Top-US-academics-discover-fresh-tobacco-leaves-can-fight-cancer


You know government allows poison in my water by way of sodium fluoride and allow poisons in the vaccines and pharmaceuticals without my consent. When I dissent I am told I am a conspiracy theorist!

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:13 PM
What is a city/state amusement hall? I'm not familiar with that term.

Museum of Science. Aquarium. Theatre. etc.

Tod
03-08-2012, 01:14 PM
Am I the only one here who has left a room to avoid offending people with my fart? I've done that LOTS of times.

no, I do not fart in your general direction....

Tod
03-08-2012, 01:15 PM
Museum of Science. Aquarium. Theatre. etc.

ah....but as Libertarians, we would banish the existence of such things, no? They would all be privately owned.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:16 PM
As people of Libertarian bent, there would be no public hospitals, so of course those who argue for banning smoking in hospitals because one has no "choice" to be there just got that argument shot down...it would be private property. In fact, except for maybe some VA hospitals, are there any public hospitals?

Most hospitals receive some form of government (public) monies. Private ownership establishments do not. Difference.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:19 PM
ah....but as Libertarians, we would banish the existence of such things, no? They would all be privately owned.

Banish? Hardly. Individuals within communities are more than welcome to pool their resources for the mutual benefit.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 01:20 PM
Many locales are banning smoking in apartments and townhouses now, so you basically can't smoke in your own home.



An apartment is not your property. If the property owner only wants to rent to non-smokers, that's certainly his right. (Personally, I hate the smell of curry.....)

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 01:23 PM
An apartment is not your property. If the property owner only wants to rent to non-smokers, that's certainly his right. (Personally, I hate the smell of curry.....)

Not sure you could not rent to curry-cookers. As that would effectively discriminate against a protected class.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 01:24 PM
Most hospitals receive some form of government (public) monies. Private ownership establishments do not. Difference.

Is there actually a problem with letting hospitals decide? Again, when I was growing up, we could smoke in hospitals as long as oxygen wasn't in use. In the 80's, my doctor pulled up a chair and had a smoke while we talked about my symptoms. How horrifying that is for people like Tod, I guess.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 01:24 PM
Not sure you could not rent to curry-cookers. As that would effectively discriminate against a protected class.

Yeah, but that smell is 10 x's harder to remove than cigarette smoke.

jmdrake
03-08-2012, 01:25 PM
It's official. I will never again trust anything I read at RPF with regards to health. While I think people should be able to choose to smoke the evidence is overwhelming that it is bad for you.



http://www.sott.net/image/image/s3/69762/large/Fascism1.jpg


Big Pharma wants you to Quit Smoking

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229868-Big-Pharma-wants-you-to-Quit-Smoking


Where is the 'War Against Cell Phones'? WHO guilty of hypocrisy

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229866-Where-is-the-War-Against-Cell-Phones-WHO-guilty-of-hypocrisy

Anti-smoking propaganda: Decrease in smoking causes oral cancer?

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229865-Anti-smoking-propaganda-Decrease-in-smoking-causes-oral-cancer-

Nicotine's effect on appetite identified

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229864-Nicotine-s-effect-on-appetite-identified

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:26 PM
Is there actually a problem with letting hospitals decide? Again, when I was growing up, we could smoke in hospitals as long as oxygen wasn't in use. In the 80's, my doctor pulled up a chair and had a smoke while we talked about my symptoms. How horrifying that is for people like Tod, I guess.

That would depend. Is the hospital a private entity sufficient only on its own funding. If so then yes. Do they receive government funding. Then no. They open themselves up to the dictates of those they receive funding from.

jmdrake
03-08-2012, 01:28 PM
If you love liberty and good health, please support these products which allow smokers to kill themselves without endangering (or at the very least annoying) others.

Smokeless ashtray.
http://www.kotulas.com/wcsstore/KotulaCatalogAssetStore/images/product/550711_lg.jpg

Electronic cigarettes.
http://media.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/newsroom/images/3421444.jpg

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:28 PM
Meh, my grandfather lived well into his nineties. Smoked hand rolled every day. Filterless. Would that I could live so long and be active and coherent till the end.

Tod
03-08-2012, 01:30 PM
The whole idea of a Republic is based on the premise that the people will behave civilly and responsibly. Once you toss that premise out the window, a republic cannot stand. With Liberty comes Responsibility. They are flip sides to the same coin. It is impossible to have one without the other.

Take the 2nd Amendment. We have the right to bear arms. But suppose most everyone who bore arms went around shooting things (like signs, parked cars, windows, etc) and people for the fun of it instead of behaving responsibly? How long do you think the 2nd Amendment would remain a part of the Constitution? It would have been repealed long ago. True, there are many people who would like to do away with it no matter if everyone were responsible with their weapons, but there would be many many more if the vast majority of gun owners weren't so responsible. Those in favor of gun ownership wouldn't be able to convince enough people of the importance of gun ownership.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 01:31 PM
That would depend. Is the hospital a private entity sufficient only on its own funding. If so then yes. Do they receive government funding. Then no. They open themselves up to the dictates of those they receive funding from.

Oh sure. I"m on board with that. IF you want to take the government's money, you have to take the government's rules.

But - and here's that slippery slope argument again - there is a faction of Republicans that think Medicare and Medicaid patients should have their benefits cut off if they don't quit smoking and / or lose weight. Check out this blog post, written by a Republican water-bearer. You'll see my comments in the bottom. It's social engineering - and it makes me genuinely sorry I actually brought kids into this world. http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2012/03/when-does-state-have-legitimate-state.html

jmdrake
03-08-2012, 01:31 PM
Banish? Hardly. Individuals within communities are more than welcome to pool their resources for the mutual benefit.

Privately owned by a group of individuals is still privately owned. All religious hospitals are owned by individuals who have pooled their resources for the mutual benefit. "Public" ownership is when someone who may not want to contribute has to contribute through taxes.

donnay
03-08-2012, 01:32 PM
The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

By

J. R. Johnstone, PhD (Monash)

and

P.D.Finch, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Statistics (Monash)





Science is not always a neutral, disinterested search for knowledge, although it may often seem that way to the outsider. Sometimes the story can be very different.



Smoking and health have been the subject of argument since tobacco was introduced to Europe in the sixteenth century. King James I was a pioneer antismoker. In 1604 he declared that smoking was "a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." But like many a politician since, he decided that taxing tobacco was a more sensible option than banning it.

By the end of the century general opinion had changed. The Royal College of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its benefits to health and advised which brands were best. Smoking was compulsory in schools. An Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s textbook of medicine recommended smoking to relieve asthma.

These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer."

Doll and Hill decided to follow their preliminary work with a much larger and protracted study. British doctors were asked to take part as subjects. 40.000 volunteered and 20,000 refused. The relative health of smokers, nonsmokers and particularly ex-smokers would be compared over the course of future years. In this trial smokers would no longer be asked whether they inhaled, in spite of the earlier result. Fisher commented: "I suppose the subject of inhaling had become distasteful to the research workers, and they just wanted to hear as little about inhaling as possible". And: "Should not these workers have let the world know not only that they had discovered the cause of lung cancer (cigarettes) but also that they had discovered the means of its prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)? How had the MRC [Medical Research Council] the heart to withhold this information from the thousands who would otherwise die of lung cancer?"

Five year’s later, in 1964, Doll and Hill responded to this damning criticism. They did not explain why they had withdrawn the question about inhaling. Instead they complained that Fisher had not examined their more recent results but they agreed their results were mystifying. Fisher had died 2 years earlier and could not reply.

This refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of antismoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science.

A typical example of such deception appeared in the same year from the American Surgeon General. This was "Smoking and Health",

the first of many reports on smoking and health to be produced by his office over the next 40 years. It declared that in the Doll and Hill study "…no difference in the proportion of smokers inhaling was found among male and female cases and controls." Fisher had shown this was not so. Fisher’s assessment and criticism of the Doll and Hill results is not mentioned, not even to be rejected. Unwelcome results are not merely considered and rejected. They cease to exist.

The work of Doll and Hill was continued and followed up over the next 50 years. They reintroduced the question about inhaling. Their results continued to show the inhaling/noninhaling paradox. In spite of this defect their work was to become the keystone of the modern anti-smoking movement: Defects count for nothing if they are never considered by those who are appointed to assess the evidence.

But their work had a far more serious and crippling disability.

From its inception the British doctors study was known to have a critical weakness. Its subjects were not selected randomly by the investigators but had decided for themselves to be smokers, nonsmokers or ex-smokers. The kind of error that can result from such non-random selection was well demonstrated during the 1948 US presidential election. Opinion polls showed that Dewey would win by a landslide from Truman. Yet Truman won. He was famously photographed holding a newspaper with a headline declaring Dewey the winner. The pollsters had got it wrong by doing a telephone poll which at that time would have targeted the wealthier voters. The majority of telephone owners may have supported Dewey but those without telephones had not. A true sample of the population had not been obtained.

The new Doll and Hill study was subject to a similar error. Smokers who became ex-smokers might have done so because they were ill and hoped quitting would improve them. Alternatively, they might quit because they were exceptionally healthy and hoped to remain so. Quitting could appear either harmful or beneficial. To avoid this source of error another project, the Whitehall study, was begun.

In 1968 fourteen hundred British civil servants, all smokers, were divided into two similar groups. Half were encouraged and counselled to quit smoking. These formed the test group. The others, the control group, were left to their own devices. For ten years both groups were monitored with respect to their health and smoking status.

Such a study is known as a randomised controlled intervention trial. It has become increasingly the benchmark, or as it is often referred to, the "gold standard" of medical investigation. Any week you can open The Lancet or British Medical Journal and you will likely find an example of such a trial to determine the benefits or harm of some new therapy. Such trials are fundamentally different to that of Doll and Hill. This is ironic because Hill had published the influential and much-reprinted textbook "Principles of Medical Statistics" where he considers the relative merits of controlled and uncontrolled trials. His praise is reserved for the former. Of the latter he is particularly critical: Such work uses "second-best" or "inferior" methods. "The same objections must be made to the contrasting in a trial of volunteers for a treatment with those who do not volunteer, or in everyday life between those who accept and those who refuse. There can be no knowledge that such groups are comparable; and the onus lies wholly, it may justly be maintained, upon the experimenter to prove that they are comparable, before his results can be accepted." This criticism by Hill can accurately be applied to the Doll and Hill study. According to Hill’s own criteria, his work with Doll can only be described as second-rate, inferior work. It would be for others to conduct properly controlled trials.

So what were the results of the Whitehall study? They were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group.

Over the next decade the results of other similar trials appeared. It had been argued that if an improvement in one life-style factor, smoking, were of benefit, then an improvement in several - eg smoking, diet and exercise - should produce even clearer benefits. And so appeared the results of the whimsically acronymed Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial or MRFIT, with its 12,886 American subjects. Similarly, in Europe 60,881 subjects in four countries took part in the WHO Collaborative Trial. In Sweden the Goteborg study had 30,022 subjects. These were enormously expensive, wide-spread and time-consuming experiments. In all, there were 6 such trials with a total of over a hundred thousand subjects each engaged for an average of 7.4 years, a grand total of nearly 800,000 subject-years. The results of all were uniform, forthright and unequivocal: giving up smoking, even when fortified by improved diet and exercise, produced no increase in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rate for heart disease or for cancer. A decade of expensive and protracted research had produced a quite unexpected result.

During this same period, in America, the Surgeon General had been issuing a number of publications about smoking and health. In 1982, before the final results of the Whitehall study had been published, the then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had praised the study for "pointing up the positive consequences of smoking in a positive manner". But now for nearly ten years he fell silent on the subject and there was no further mention of the Whitehall study nor of the other six studies, though thousands of pages on the dangers of smoking issued from his office. For example in 1989 there appeared "Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress". This weighty work is long on advice about the benefits of giving up smoking but short on discussion of the very studies which should allow the evaluation of that advice: you will look in vain through the thousand references to scientific papers for any mention of the Whitehall study or most of the other six quit studies. Only the MRFIT study is mentioned, and then falsely:

"The MRFIT study shows that smoking status and number of cigarettes smoked per day have remained powerful predictors for total mortality and the development of CHD [coronary heart disease], stroke, cancer, and COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. In the study population, there were an estimated 2,249 (29 percent) excess deaths due to smoking, of which 35 percent were from CHD and 21 percent from lung cancer. The nonsmoker-former smoker group had 30 percent fewer total cancers than the smoking group over the 6-year follow up."

This was untrue, as the Surgeon General was later to admit.


Continued... (http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html)

angelatc
03-08-2012, 01:34 PM
The whole idea of a Republic is based on the premise that the people will behave civilly and responsibly. Once you toss that premise out the window, a republic cannot stand. With Liberty comes Responsibility. They are flip sides to the same coin. It is impossible to have one without the other.



I am weary of you, especially because you insist on calling yourself a libertarian. Personal responsibility simply means avoiding going to restaurants where smokers smoke. It does not mean the state should have the right to make smokers stop smoking simply because it offends you. That position is fascist, not libertarian.

People like you should be taken to camps, where the government can make sure everybody behaves in the manner that the majority decides is acceptable.

Tod
03-08-2012, 01:36 PM
I am weary of you, especially because you insist on calling yourself a libertarian. Personal responsibility means avoiding going to restaurants where smokers smoke. It does not mean the state should have the right to make smokers stop smoking simply because it offends you. That position is fascist, not libertarian.

And I of you, tarnishing the good name of Liberty by using it as an excuse for impolite behavior.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:38 PM
Privately owned by a group of individuals is still privately owned. All religious hospitals are owned by individuals who have pooled their resources for the mutual benefit. "Public" ownership is when someone who may not want to contribute has to contribute through taxes.

That was the message I was trying to convey. You did it better than I. Thank you.

donnay
03-08-2012, 01:42 PM
I am just trying to put up well researched material to counter the anti-smoking lies:

THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING AND NICOTINE
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm


Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk (http://www.data-yard.net/10v2/parkinson.htm) - More evidence that smoking fights Parkinson - "A new study adds to the previously reported evidence that cigarette smoking protects against Parkinson's disease. Specifically, the new research shows a temporal relationship between smoking and reduced risk of Parkinson's disease. That is, the protective effect wanes after smokers quit."


Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (http://85.18.251.150/34/circulation_2001_104_773.htm)– This large study shows yet another benefit of smoking. This time the benefit concerns restenosis, that is, the occlusion of coronary arteries. Smokers have much better chances to survive, heal and do well. Where is the press? Nowhere to be found, of course; we are talking about a significant positive about tobacco and smoking, which affects the health of people, don’t we? Well, come on! We are also talking about responsible media, here… people better increase their chances of death from cardiovascular disease then getting the idea that smoking may be good for them – a totally unacceptable paradox.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines paradox in these terms: "A statement or tenet contrary to received opinion or belief … as being discordant with what is held to be established truth, and hence absurd or fantastic". Since the benefits of smoking are too numerous and consistent to be attributable to error or random chance, it follows that the established truth asserting that smoking is the cause of (almost) all disease cannot be true – a reality that dramatically clashes with the gigantic corruption of public health, its pharmaceutical and insurance mentors, institutions and media. Therefore, it is constantly suppressed in the interest of public health, but not of the people.

Severe Gum Recession, Less Of A Risk For Smokers (http://www.data-yard.net/10o/gums.htm) - In the strange world that anti-tobacco has wrought, any research that deviates from the tobacco-is-the-root-of-all-evil template is noteworthy. Here is a study that shows that smokers are actually at lower risk from gum disease. In this page (scroll down) there is more scientific evidence from other sources about oral health and smoking.

Honest scientists have always known that smoking has some benefit. From the apparent shielding effect against Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases to the more intangible benefits associated with well-being and tranquility, smoking tobacco in many ways is definitely good for your health.

One of the "Health Warnings" on cigarette pack in Canada. There is no solid proof for any of the diseases attributed to tobacco - just statistics and speculative associations, but the ministries of health continue to lie to the public, in a dazzling display of intellectual, professional, moral and political corruption.

Twin Study Supports Protective Effect of Smoking For Parkinson's Disease – "Dr. Tanner's group continued to see significant differences when dose was calculated until 10 years or 20 years prior to diagnosis. They conclude that this finding refutes the suggestion that individuals who smoke more are less likely to have PD because those who develop symptoms quit smoking." "‘The inverse association of smoking dose and PD can be attributed to environmental, and not genetic, causes with near certainty," the authors write.’

Total silence from the antismoking mass media droids, of course, on this pivotal, long-range study that shows yet another benefit of smoking. The reasons are obvious, and they need no further comments. If the intention of "public health" is to inform the public about the consequences of smoking on health as it proclaims, why don’t we see "warnings" such as: "Smoking Protects against Parkinson’s Disease," or "Smoking protects against Alzheimer’s Disease," or "Smoking protects against Ulcerative Colitis" and so on, alongside with the other speculations on "tobacco-related" disease? Isn’t the function of public health to tell the citizens about ALL the effects on health of a substance? Obviously not. "Public health," today, is nothing more than a deceiving propaganda machine paid by pharmaceutical and public money to promote frauds, fears, and puritanical rhetoric dressed up in white coats.


Does tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorders? A study of two generations of Swedish residents (http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm) - "In a multivariate analysis, children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9)."

Kids of smokers have LOWER asthma! You certainly won't see this one on the health news of BBC or ABC, as they are too busy trying to convince us that smokers "cause" asthma in their kids - and in the kids of others. That, of course, is not true, as smoking does not "cause" asthma.

Shocker: 'Villain' nicotine slays TB (http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nicotine.htm) - "Nicotine might be a surprising alternative someday for treating stubborn forms of tuberculosis, a University of Central Florida researcher said Monday. The compound stopped the growth of tuberculosis in laboratory tests, even when used in small quantities, said Saleh Naser, an associate professor of microbiology and molecular biology at UCF. ... Most scientists agree that nicotine is the substance that causes people to become addicted to cigarettes and other tobacco products."

"… But no one is suggesting that people with TB take up the potentially deadly habit of smoking." Of course not.It is much better to develop medication-resistant superbugs than to start smoking...It should be said that the "most scientists" in question are paid off by the pharmaceutical industry for their research; and that most of the aforementioned "scientists" promote the nicotine-based "cessation" products manufactured by their masters -- mysteriously without explaining why such an addictive substance becomes "un-addictive" when used to quit smoking!

Carbon Monoxide May Alleviate Heart Attacks And Stroke (http://www.data-yard.net/10b/cm.htm) - Carbon monoxide is a by-product of tobacco smoke. A report indicates very low levels of carbon monoxide may help victims of heart attacks and strokes. Carbon monoxide inhibits blood clotting, thereby dissolving harmful clots in the arteries. The researchers focused on carbon monoxide's close resemblance to nitric oxide which keeps blood vessels from dilating and prevents the buildup of white blood cells. "Recently nitric oxide has been elevated from a common air pollutant . . . to an [internal] second messenger of utmost physiological importance. Therefore, many of us may not be entirely surprised to learn that carbon monoxide can paradoxically rescue the lung from [cardiovascular blockage] injury." The pharmacological benefits of tobacco are nothing new.

Smoking Prevents Rare Skin Cancer (http://www.data-yard.net/10b/kaposi.htm) - A researcher at the National Cancer Institute is treading treacherous waters by suggesting that smoking may act as a preventative for developing a skin cancer that primarily afflicts elderly men in Mediterranean regions of Southern Italy, Greece and Israel. Not that smoking should be recommended for that population, Dr. James Goedert is quick to assure his peers. What is important is not that smoking tobacco may help to prevent a rare form of cancer but that there is an admission by a researcher at the National Cancer Institute that there are ANY benefits to smoking.

Smoking Reduces The Risk Of Breast Cancer (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/brea.htm) - A new study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (May 20, 1998) reports that carriers of a particular gene mutation (which predisposes the carrier to breast cancer) who smoked cigarettes for more than 4 pack years (i.e., number of packs per day multiplied by the number of years of smoking) were found to have a statistically significant 54 percent decrease in breast cancer incidence when compared with carriers who never smoked. One strength of the study is that the reduction in incidence exceeds the 50 percent threshold. However, we think it important to point out that this was a small, case control study (only 300 cases) based on self-reported data.

Nitric oxide mediates a therapeutic effect of nicotine in ulcerative colitis (http://www.data-yard.net/22/ncbi.htm) - "CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine reduces circular muscle activity, predominantly through the release of nitric oxide-this appears to be 'up-regulated' in active ulcerative colitis. These findings may explain some of the therapeutic benefit from nicotine (and smoking) in ulcerative colitis and may account for the colonic motor dysfunction in active disease."

Effects of Transdermal Nicotine on Cognitive Performance in Down's Syndrome (http://www.data-yard.net/13/tlj.htm) - "We investigated the effect of nicotine-agonistic stimulation with 5 mg transdermal patches, compared with placebo, on cognitive performance in five adults with the disorder. Improvements possibly related to attention and information processing were seen for Down's syndrome patients compared with healthy controls. Our preliminary findings are encouraging…"

More benefits of nicotine. Of course, it is politically incorrect to say that this is a benefit of smoking - only of the pharmaceutically-produced transdermal nicotine, the one that is terribly addictive if delivered through cigarettes, but not addictive at all, and even beneficial, when delivered through patches....
Antismoking nonsense aside, nicotine gets into the body regardless of the means of delivery. And more evidence about the benefis seems to emerge quite often, though the small size of this study cannot certainly be taken as conclusive.

Nicotine Benefits (http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/nicotine.htm) - The benefits of nicotine -- and smoking -- are described in this bibliography. This information is an example of what the anti-tobacco groups do not want publicized because it fails to support their agenda. Some of the studies report benefits not just from nicotine, but from smoking itself. But of course, according to the anti-smokers, all these scientists have been "paid by the tobacco industry" ... even though this is not true. Sadly, personal slander and misinformation are the price a scientist has to pay for honest work on tobacco.

Parkinson's Disease Is Associated With Non-smoking - Bibliography of references from studies associating Parkinson's disease with non-smoking. Certain benefits of smoking are well-documented, but the anti smoking groups, backed by several medical journals (more interested in advertising revenue than in informing the population), are silent. By the way, what about the cost of non-smokers to society due to their prevailing tencency to contract Parkinson's disease?

Alzheimer's Disease Is Associated With Non-Smoking (http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol16.htm) - "A statistically significant inverse relation between smoking and Alzheimer's disease was observed at all levels of analysis, with a trend towards decreasing risk with increasing consumption".

Research indicating that nicotine holds potential for non-surgical heart by-pass procedures honored by the american college of cardiology (http://www.data-yard.net/10/toben.htm) - Dr. Christopher Heeschen of Stanford University was honored by the American College of Cardiology for his research on the effect of nicotine on angiogenesis (new blood vessel growth). His work took third place in the 2,000 entry Young Investigators Competition in the category of Physiology, Pharmacology and Pathology. Dr. Heeschen presented compelling data from research done at Stanford revealing that the simple plant protein, nicotine, applied in small harmless doses, produced new blood vessel growth around blocked arteries to oxygen-starved tissue.

Smoking Your Way to Good Health (http://85.18.251.150/10/nicoplus.htm) - The benefits of smoking tobacco have been common knowledge for centuries. From sharpening mental acuity to maintaining optimal weight, the relatively small risks of smoking have always been outweighed by the substantial improvement to mental and physical health. Hysterical attacks on tobacco notwithstanding, smokers always weigh the good against the bad and puff away or quit according to their personal preferences.

Now the same anti-tobacco enterprise that has spent billions demonizing the pleasure of smoking is providing additional reasons to smoke. Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Tourette's Syndrome, even schizophrenia and cocaine addiction are disorders that are alleviated by tobacco. Add in the still inconclusive indication that tobacco helps to prevent colon and prostate cancer and the endorsement for smoking tobacco by the medical establishment is good news for smokers and non-smokers alike. Of course the revelation that tobacco is good for you is ruined by the pharmaceutical industry's plan to substitute the natural and relatively inexpensive tobacco plant with their overpriced and ineffective nicotine substitutions. Still, when all is said and done, the positive revelations regarding tobacco are very good reasons indeed to keep lighting those cigarettes.

Does maternal smoking hinder mother-child transmission of Helicobacter pylori infection? - "Evidence for early childhood as the critical period of Helicobacter pylori infection and for clustering of the infection within families suggests a major role of intrafamilial transmission. In a previous study, we found a strong inverse relation between maternal smoking and H. pylori infection among preschool children, suggesting the possibility that mother-child transmission of the infection may be less efficient if the mother smokes. To evaluate this hypothesis further, we carried out a subsequent population-based study in which H. pylori infection was measured by 13C-urea breath test in 947 preschool children and their mothers. We obtained detailed information on potential risk factors for infection, including maternal smoking, by standardized questionnaires. Overall, 9.8% (93 of 947) of the children and 34.7% (329 of 947) of the mothers were infected. Prevalence of infection was much lower among children of uninfected mothers (1.9%) than among children of infected mothers (24.7%). There was a strong inverse relation of children's infection with maternal smoking (adjusted odds ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval = 0.12-0.49) among children of infected mothers, but not among children of uninfected mothers. These results support the hypothesis of a predominant role for mother-child transmission of H. pylori infection, which may be less efficient if the mother smokes. ". Click here (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/preg.htm) for more information on smoking and pregnancy.

Risk of papillary thyroid cancer in women in relation to smoking and alcohol consumption. - "Both smoking and alcohol consumption may influence thyroid function, although the nature of these relations is not well understood. We examined the influence of tobacco and alcohol use on risk of papillary thyroid cancer in a population-based case-control study. Of 558 women with thyroid cancer diagnosed during 1988-1994 identified as eligible, 468 (83.9%) were interviewed; this analysis was restricted to women with papillary histology (N = 410). Controls (N = 574) were identified by random digit dialing, with a response proportion of 73.6%. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) and associated confidence intervals (CI) estimating the relative risk of papillary thyroid cancer associated with cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption. A history of ever having smoked more than 100 cigarettes was associated with a reduced risk of disease (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5-0.9). This reduction in risk was most evident in current smokers (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.4-0.7).
Women who reported that they had ever consumed 12 or more alcohol-containing drinks within a year were also at reduced risk (OR 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5-1.0). Similar to the association noted with smoking, the reduction in risk was primarily present among current alcohol consumers. The associations we observed, if not due to chance, may be related to actions of cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption that reduce thyroid cell proliferation through effects on thyroid stimulating hormone, estrogen, or other mechanisms. "

Urinary Cotinine Concentration Confirms the Reduced Risk of Preeclampsia with Tobacco Exposure (http://www.data-yard.net/2/13/ajog.htm) - This study, though small, shows one of the benefits of smoking during pregnancy. "These findings, obtained by using laboratory assay, confirm the reduced risk of developing preeclampsia with tobacco exposure. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1192-6.) " Click here for more information on smoking and pregnancy.

Fact Sheet on Smoking and Alzheimer's - From Forest UK.

Smokers have reduced risks of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/liars.htm#alz) - Of the 19 studies, 15 found a reduce risk in smokers, and none found an increased risk. And smoking is clearly associated with a reduced risk of Parkinson's disease, another disease in which nicotine receptors are reduced. The fact that acute administration of nicotine improves attention and information processing in AD patients adds further plausibility to the hypothesis.

The Puzzling Association between Smoking and Hypertension during Pregnancy (http://www.data-yard.net/2/14/ajog2.htm) - This large study has examined nearly 10,000 pregnant women. Conclusion: "Smoking is associated with a reduced risk of hypertension during pregnancy. The protective effect appears to continue even after cessation of smoking. Further basic research on this issue is warranted. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1407-13.) " Click here (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/preg.htm) for more information on smoking and pregnancy.

Smoking: Protection Against Neural Tube Defects? (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/neural.htm) - Swedish researchers have some surprising news for pregnant women who smoke: a decreased risk of neural tube defects in babies. Click here (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/preg.htm) for more information on smoking and pregnancy.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 01:42 PM
And I of you, tarnishing the good name of Liberty by using it as an excuse for impolite behavior.

And here I was, thinking that you couldn't be any more wrong. Sweetie, you don't want to argue proper etiquette in a polite society with me. I know what every single one of those forks are for, and where they go on a table. And that's just where I start.

You lose again - because publicly criticizing the behavior of others, and advocating for your comfort at the expense of theirs is the actual faux paus. Manners means putting yourself last, not braying about how offended you are by the behavior of others.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:44 PM
The whole idea of a Republic is based on the premise that the people will behave civilly and responsibly. Once you toss that premise out the window, a republic cannot stand. With Liberty comes Responsibility. They are flip sides to the same coin. It is impossible to have one without the other.

Take the 2nd Amendment. We have the right to bear arms. But suppose most everyone who bore arms went around shooting things (like signs, parked cars, windows, etc) and people for the fun of it instead of behaving responsibly? How long do you think the 2nd Amendment would remain a part of the Constitution? It would have been repealed long ago. True, there are many people who would like to do away with it no matter if everyone were responsible with their weapons, but there would be many many more if the vast majority of gun owners weren't so responsible. Those in favor of gun ownership wouldn't be able to convince enough people of the importance of gun ownership.

Which signs are you talking about shooting? Those people I let onto my personal property with express consent? Or public signs posted at community roadsides? Do not muddy the issue.

jmdrake
03-08-2012, 01:47 PM
I am just trying to put up well researched material to counter the anti-smoking lies:

If you say so. :rolleyes: So the tobacco lobby are the ones who tell the truth and it's the "evil big pharma" that are the liars. Okay. Non smokers live longer than smokers and the epidemiological data proves that but okay. I've heard it all. HIV doesn't cause AIDS but it's the drugs that people take to fight HIV which causes AIDS which is why people live longer after antiviral drugs became widely available....wait a minute...that doesn't make sense. But if this was a thread on HIV invariably someone would post "research" that "proved" this just as surely as you are posting anti-anti-smoking "research". Believe what you want. It's a free country. For now anyway.

donnay
03-08-2012, 01:48 PM
Pestilence, the Great Plague and the Tobacco Cure

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234667-Pestilence-the-Great-Plague-and-the-Tobacco-Cure

angelatc
03-08-2012, 01:53 PM
Take the 2nd Amendment. We have the right to bear arms. But suppose most everyone who bore arms went around shooting things (like signs, parked cars, windows, etc) and people for the fun of it instead of behaving responsibly? How long do you think the 2nd Amendment would remain a part of the Constitution? It would have been repealed long ago. True, there are many people who would like to do away with it no matter if everyone were responsible with their weapons, but there would be many many more if the vast majority of gun owners weren't so responsible. Those in favor of gun ownership wouldn't be able to convince enough people of the importance of gun ownership.

But using your logic, because shooting offends you or because somebody might get hurt, people shouldn't be allowed to go to private clubs to shoot.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 01:55 PM
Believe what you want. It's a free country. For now anyway.

And I believe that about some's it all up.

donnay
03-08-2012, 01:59 PM
If you say so. :rolleyes: So the tobacco lobby are the ones who tell the truth and it's the "evil big pharma" that are the liars. Okay. Non smokers live longer than smokers and the epidemiological data proves that but okay. I've heard it all. HIV doesn't cause AIDS but it's the drugs that people take to fight HIV which causes AIDS which is why people live longer after antiviral drugs became widely available....wait a minute...that doesn't make sense. But if this was a thread on HIV invariably someone would post "research" that "proved" this just as surely as you are posting anti-anti-smoking "research". Believe what you want. It's a free country. For now anyway.

I am not saying that. I am talking about the tobacco in of itself. I know the Big Tobacco companies have put additives and chemicals in their cigarettes--they are bad news, no doubt.

My grandmother smoked when she was 9 years old and lived to be 83. She smoked up to the day she died and did not die of smoke related issues.

Believe me, I know this shatters many peoples minds because we have been told over and over how bad tobacco is. Just take a look at some of the stuff I have posted. I have been researching this for a very long time. I know it blew my mind when I found these things out too. However, I know government doesn't care about your health--smoking bans are nothing more than another arm of control they have on us. Now you can say Big Tobacco was in cahoots with government and I will agree with you. But tobacco as a whole, is right there in the same league as marijuana. I am not asking you to trust me, just read the independent studies I have posted, and if you still come to the same conclusions then so be it, but I am pretty sure you won't.

Did you know tobacco is loaded with B-17? Do you know what B-17 does? It kills cancer.

Tod
03-08-2012, 02:04 PM
Banish? Hardly. Individuals within communities are more than welcome to pool their resources for the mutual benefit.

Forcing someone to pay for a hospital at the point of a gun is a decidedly unlibertarian act, and that is what a public hospital is.

Tod
03-08-2012, 02:06 PM
But using your logic, because shooting offends you or because somebody might get hurt, people shouldn't be allowed to go to private clubs to shoot.

Clearly you have lost all connection to reality, so I'll bow out at this point. Have a good afternoon! :)

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 02:11 PM
Forcing someone to pay for a hospital at the point of a gun is a decidedly unlibertarian act, and that is what a public hospital is.

Yeah jmdrake spoke more eloquently than I to that point earlier. Still neither here nor their with regards to your position of having smoking banned in private establishments.

GrahamUK
03-08-2012, 02:12 PM
We've had the smoking ban in Scotland since 2006 and its got its pro's and cons.... Speaking as a smoker i don't mind it so much, it makes going to restaurants and bars a cleaner and much nicer experience for a start. Its good to go for a night out and not come home stinking of smoke.

Lishy
03-08-2012, 02:15 PM
As much as I want smoking banned (And I'm a hypocrite because I LIKE the smoking bans in Canada...) Shouldn't private businesses be able to choose?

I mean, even where smoking is allowed here, I don't see many people smoking. I think there's a decline in general, and we don't need iron bars anymore.

craezie
03-08-2012, 02:20 PM
Smoking in the public sphere is not an exercise of liberty. One of the principles of liberty is that my rights end where yours begin. If smoking in confined quarters with others did not affect (sometimes profoundly) others around you, then you would have an argument. But the fact is that your smoke is toxic to those around you, and you do not have the right to intentionally expose others to the toxic contaminants in public places that they need to go. I say this as a former smoker, before I developed a severe allergy to smoke that now causes me to break out in hives whenever I am in the proximity of smoke for any extended period of time (I suppose according to the previous poster I should have just smoked more). Now that I am a parent, I also do not prefer my children to be in an environment where smoking seems like a socially acceptable choice.

Like anything it is a balancing act--you do have the freedom to put whatever you want in your body, but the exercise of your freedom also has unwanted physical and social consequences to others. I don't have a problem with banning smoking in places where people have to go or are in close quarters, such as public buildings, stores, theaters, and some kinds of restaurants. I do think, however, that the smoking ban goes to far (at least where I live in California) in that it prevents people from allowing smoking in businesses that WANT to cater to smokers. For example, when I smoked, I would go to a cigar bar where they couldn't allow liquor even though their very purpose was to be a cigar bar. They would have people purchase drinks from the bar next door and then bring them in because food and drink couldn't be sold in the same establishment. That, to me, is an absurd limitation of freedom.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 02:20 PM
We've had the smoking ban in Scotland since 2006 and its got its pro's and cons.... Speaking as a smoker i don't mind it so much, it makes going to restaurants and bars a cleaner and much nicer experience for a start. Its good to go for a night out and not come home stinking of smoke.

And to the smoker that chooses to have a smoke WITH his draught? What of him? Shouldn't he and others of his belief also get a spot to dine or celebrate in?

Lishy
03-08-2012, 02:24 PM
Smoking in the public sphere is not an exercise of liberty. One of the principles of liberty is that my rights end where yours begin. If smoking in confined quarters with others did not affect (sometimes profoundly) others around you, then you would have an argument. But the fact is that your smoke is toxic to those around you, and you do not have the right to intentionally expose others to the toxic contaminants in public places that they need to go. I say this as a former smoker, before I developed a severe allergy to smoke that now causes me to break out in hives whenever I am in the proximity of smoke for any extended period of time (I suppose according to the previous poster I should have just smoked more). Now that I am a parent, I also do not prefer my children to be in an environment where smoking seems like a socially acceptable choice.

Like anything it is a balancing act--you do have the freedom to put whatever you want in your body, but the exercise of your freedom also has unwanted physical and social consequences to others. I don't have a problem with banning smoking in places where people have to go or are in close quarters, such as public buildings, stores, theaters, and some kinds of restaurants. I do think, however, that the smoking ban goes to far (at least where I live in California) in that it prevents people from allowing smoking in businesses that WANT to cater to smokers. For example, when I smoked, I would go to a cigar bar where they couldn't allow liquor even though their very purpose was to be a cigar bar. They would have people purchase drinks from the bar next door and then bring them in because food and drink couldn't be sold in the same establishment. That, to be, is an absurd limitation of freedom.

This is somewhat my view.

We have to keep in mind the liberties and health freedoms of others. Though, banning smoking in bars really is stupid in my opinion... Shouldn't bars be, you know.. Where we go to get wasted?

I've never had a Cigar before (But want to try one since I hear it's much less dangerous to my asthma than Cigarettes), and I think once I started smoking, it'd be dumb if I cannot do so in a bar..

donnay
03-08-2012, 02:30 PM
Throughout history smoking bans and prohibitions introduced by despots and totalitarian regimes have come and gone. The most recent in Europe prior to the introduction of Ireland's repressive smoking legislation were the anti smoking laws of the Third Reich, introduced by the Nazi's during their brief but devastating regime in Germany.

Despite some harsh punishments throughout the decades for those disobeying smoking bans including death, smoking and smokers have continued to thrive. Below are some of the failed smoking bans and prohibitions introduced throughout the ages including the proliferation of bans revoked after the failure of prohibition in America.


1575: Mexico:

The first recorded passing of legislation prohibiting the use of Tobacco occurs when the Roman Catholic Church passes a law which prohibits smoking in any place of worship throughout the Spanish Colonies

1600s: World-wide

Popes ban smoking in holy places and all places of worship. Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatens excommunication for those who smoke or take snuff in holy places.

1612: China

Royal decree forbids the use and cultivation of tobacco

1617: Mongolia

Mongolian Emperor prohibits the use of tobacco. People breaking the law face the death penalty.

1620: Japan

bans the use of tobacco

1632: America

The first recorded smoking ban in America occurs when Massachusetts introduces a ban on smoking in public places

1633: Turkey:

Sultan Murad IV bans smoking and as many as 18 people a day are executed for breaking his law.

1634: Russia

Czar Alexis bans smoking. Those found guilty of a first offence risk whipping, a slit nose, and exile to Siberia. Those found guilty of a second offence face execution.

1634: Greece

The Greek Church bans the use of tobacco claiming tobacco smoke was responsible for intoxicating Noah.

1638: China

The use and supply of tobacco is made a crime punishable by decapitation for those convicted

1639: America

Governor Kieft of New Amsterdam beats Bloomberg by hundreds of years and bans smoking in New Amsterdam later to become New York.

1640: Bhutan

The founder of modern Bhutan, Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal introduces that countries first smoking ban outlawing the use of tobacco in government buildings.

1647: America

People are only allowed to smoke once a day and public smoking is prohibited in Connecticut

1650: Italy

Pope Innocent X's issues a decree against smoking in St Peter's, Rome

1657: Switzerland

Smoking prohibition introduced throughout Switzerland

1674: Russia

Death penalty introduced for the crime of smoking.

1683: America

First laws in America passed prohibiting smoking outdoors in Massachusetts. Philadelphia follows suit introducing fines for offenders.

1693: England

First recorded ban in England introduced prohibiting smoking in certain areas of the chambers of parliament

* Smoking bans and prohibitions became rare during the 18th and 19th century. Trade in tobacco became an important source of revenue for monarchs and leaders and tobacco bans were revoked. Even the Pope not to be left out opened a tobacco factory in 1779.

1719: France

Smoking is banned with the exception of a number of provinces.

1818: USA

Smoking is banned on the streets of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The mayor is fined when he becomes the first man to break the law.

1840: USA

Smoking is banned in Boston

1893: USA

Washington State introduces legislation banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes

1898: USA

Total ban on cigarettes in the state of Tennessee

1900: USA

The sale of cigarettes is now outlawed in the states of Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota

1904: USA

A women is sent to jail for 30 days by a New York judge for smoking in front of her children.

1905: USA

Indiana introduces a total cigarette ban

1907: USA

Washington passes legislation banning the manufacture, sale, exchange or giving away cigarettes, cigarette paper or wrappers

1914: USA

Smoking banned in the US Senate

1922: USA

15 States now have laws banning the sale, manufacture, possession and use of cigarettes

Hitler was a fervent anti smoker and a crusader for the anti-smoking cause. He personally funded research into the dangers of smoking and little wonder those results given the nature of his regime tended to support his assertions that smoking was an evil the Aryan race must be rid of. Many of the studies carried out during the Third Reich are the basis for the arguments put forward today by those seeking the imposition of repressive smoking bans.

Hitler once stated that tobacco was "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man" Under the Nazi's the Bureau Against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco was established in 1939 followed in 1942 by the Institute for the Struggle against the dangers of Tobacco. Nazi's were the first to coin the term "passive smoking"

Under the Nazi regime the German people had imposed on them the most comprehensive set of tobacco regulations and restrictions seen in any modern nation to that date. Hitler himself took particular interest in this area often personally overseeing the drafting and implementation of anti smoking policy.

Bans And Restrictions in Nazi Germany

* The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938.

* The German Post office introduced.it's own ban

* Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals,and rest homes.

* The NSDAP (National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939

* SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty in 1939

* Hermann Goering's bans soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and while taking rest periods.

* Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.

* Smoking was banned in air raid shelters. Some provided separate rooms for smokers

* Tobacco coupons were denied to any woman who was pregnant

* Blanket smoking bans were introduced in many cafes, bars and restaurants

* Women below the age of 25 were banned from smoking

* Restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to all female customers

* In July 1943 it became illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.

* Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944. This initiative coming from Hitler himself,who was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke.

1973: America

Arizona becomes the first state in the current wave of smoking bans to pass a comprehensive law restricting smoking in public places.



http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2007/08/lets-all-light-up.html

dannno
03-08-2012, 02:30 PM
We've had the smoking ban in Scotland since 2006 and its got its pro's and cons.... Speaking as a smoker i don't mind it so much, it makes going to restaurants and bars a cleaner and much nicer experience for a start. Its good to go for a night out and not come home stinking of smoke.

What if instead a few restaurants and bars became non-smoking, and the people who wanted to go out for a night and come home not stinking of tobacco smoke went to those establishments and the people who wanted to smoke went to those establishments that allowed it?

Were there any such establishments? Is it possible that there were laws prohibiting restaurants or bars from being completely smoke free?

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 02:33 PM
The truth is the free-market WAS providing the resolve to the matter. Eating and drinking establishments WERE opened with the express intent of catering to non-smokers. And they were taking business AWAY from the major chains that knew they were losing business but still wanted the non-smokers without giving up smokers.
Instant fix for the big chains. Ban smoking. The small independents went out of business and the big chains got the non-smokers back.
The Restaurant Associations were BEHIND the smoking bans. For the sole purpose of retaining their clientele against a niche market.
So all those that applaud the smoking bans...congratulations. On killing a free market.

dannno
03-08-2012, 02:34 PM
This is somewhat my view.

We have to keep in mind the liberties and health freedoms of others. Though, banning smoking in bars really is stupid in my opinion... Shouldn't bars be, you know.. Where we go to get wasted?

I've never had a Cigar before (But want to try one since I hear it's much less dangerous to my asthma than Cigarettes), and I think once I started smoking, it'd be dumb if I cannot do so in a bar..

Cigars are less dangerous to your asthma because you don't inhale the smoke, but you still get some depending on your technique and you will still get the second hand smoke.

If you're going to smoke something, find some high quality cannabis and smoke it out of a water filtered bong. It tastes better and feels WAYY better, and it will help relieve your asthma. It might make your lungs burn for a short time if you take too big of a hit, but you will then start to feel your lungs relax and you will feel quite relieved.

Danke
03-08-2012, 02:43 PM
In the 80's, my doctor pulled up a chair and had a smoke while we talked about my symptoms. How horrifying that is for people like Tod, I guess.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwVxuu6Ugmg

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 02:46 PM
Cigars are less dangerous to your asthma because you don't inhale the smoke, but you still get some depending on your technique and you will still get the second hand smoke.

If you're going to smoke something, find some high quality cannabis and smoke it out of a water filtered bong. It tastes better and feels WAYY better, and it will help relieve your asthma. It might make your lungs burn for a short time if you take too big of a hit, but you will then start to feel your lungs relax and you will feel quite relieved.

I was asthmatic as a child. At a young age even had to endure being placed upside down on an sloped ironing board for an hour a day. I know, I know, it was what the doctor ordered. LOL. My asthma cleared up the same time as I started smoking tobacco.
Correlation does not equal causation. I'm just saying.

donnay
03-08-2012, 02:54 PM
I was asthmatic as a child. At a young age even had to endure being placed upside down on an sloped ironing board for an hour a day. I know, I know, it was what the doctor ordered. LOL. My asthma cleared up the same time as I started smoking tobacco.
Correlation does not equal causation. I'm just saying.

I have an inverter table to do that now! LOL! I don't have asthma but it is great to put your spinal fluid back in the right places.

Nevertheless, have many people looked at the connection between vaccines and asthma?

Vaccination Doubles Asthma Incidence
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/incidence_of_pneumonia.html

EARLIER VACCINATION CAUSES ASTHMA
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/blaxill1.html

The culprit behind asthma and allergies: vaccination
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/hancock1.html

A vaccine given to babies could increase the risk of childhood asthma
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/vaxasthma.html

Flu Vaccination Exacerbates Asthma
http://www.whale.to/drugs/flu_vacc.html

vechorik
03-08-2012, 02:55 PM
The smoke-free people are arguing "third hand smoke" now. (Google it, you won't believe it.)
I look at this smoke-free violation of private property rights the same as I view a lot of the green agenda.

Should we guard against pollution and protect the earth? Sure we should, but we can do it within the Constitution
and don't have to violate private property rights in the process.
It's what Dr. Paul meant when he said the environmentalists use the green movement to push their (my words) a socialist, one world government agenda.

GrahamUK
03-08-2012, 02:59 PM
What if instead a few restaurants and bars became non-smoking, and the people who wanted to go out for a night and come home not stinking of tobacco smoke went to those establishments and the people who wanted to smoke went to those establishments that allowed it?

Were there any such establishments? Is it possible that there were laws prohibiting restaurants or bars from being completely smoke free?

Erm.. That would be the sensible thing to do... don't get me wrong im a smoker myself and if your smoker you'll understand how pleasurable it is to be drinking your favourite tipple while enjoying a smoke of your chosen brand of cigarette, but we also have laws against smoking in the work place too.. Since bars and restaurants are places of work then that option is out too im afraid...

Hell this is how bad it is.. Say your a self employed van driver or w/e and your workplace is your van or other vehicle, your BANNED from smoking in your own van/car/truck etc... !!!

Here's another one:

Your in your home and your sat on the sofa watching a movie and having a smoke when some sort of domestic emergency happens, lets assume a pipe bursts and you need a plumber. You are suppose to provide a smoke free working envoiroment for said plumber.. This essentially means that you can't smoke in your own home for 1 hour before he/she arrives (cus thats the time deemed that the smoke will take to clear) and then until the jobs complete and the plumber leaves..

What we have to understand and realise is that the elites who run our nations have chosen socialism as their preffered method of control...

Found this most recent smoking nazi propaganda item, played on our nightly news show yesterday.. Laugh at us ! lol
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17282954

vechorik
03-08-2012, 03:08 PM
..................Here's another one:

Your in your home and your sat on the sofa watching a movie and having a smoke when some sort of domestic emergency happens, lets assume a pipe bursts and you need a plumber. You are suppose to provide a smoke free working envoiroment for said plumber.. This essentially means that you can't smoke in your own home for 1 hour before he/she arrives (cus thats the time deemed that the smoke will take to clear) and then until the jobs complete and the plumber leaves..

What we have to understand and realise is that the elites who run our nations have chosen socialism as their preffered method of control...

With "third hand smoke" you won't be able to smoke AT ALL. That's probably the intention of smoke-free America in the first place.
They want to ban cigarettes.
The government won't ban smoking (they want the tax money).

GrahamUK
03-08-2012, 03:18 PM
With "third hand smoke" you won't be able to smoke AT ALL. That's probably the intention of smoke-free America in the first place.
They want to ban cigarettes.
The government won't ban smoking (they want the tax money).

I've always said if you guys wana see where you headed then look to the UK. Socialism is the way its gona be im afraid, look at how bad things are in Britain, we're 20-30 yrs ahead of you guys, but your gaining on us, FAST.

As for the tax issue... We already pay huge taxes on smoke here, a pack of 20 would prolly cost around 10USD

Another thing their trying to do over here atm is ban smoking while driving, so the police will have the power to pull you over and give you a ticket for smoking in your OWN car, even if your alone!!

Also they are trying to change the retail laws to have shopkeepers sell cigarettes 'under' the counter and from blank packages with NO labels or adverts on em...

P.s.

The smoking ban is a signal of gov't funded healthcare.. reason i say this is that the tax money collected from smokers don't mean a damn thing if the gov't is then paying HUGE amounts providing treatments for lung cancer and other smoking related diseases.. To the gov't its simple math, they dun care about your rights, its all about the money..

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 03:19 PM
The smoke-free people are arguing "third hand smoke" now. (Google it, you won't believe it.)

You are correct. Just like any advocacy group they cannot achieve an objective and stop there. Otherwise they would cease to exist as an advocacy group.
Like equal rights advocacy groups. The stated goal was equal rights. Once that was achieved it turned into a 'special privilege' advocacy group. Candy Lightner created Mothers Against Drunk Drivers with the sole intent of taking 'recidivists' off roadways. She later left the organization because she said it was taken over by prohibitionists and that was not her intent.
So too will the anti-smoking lobbyists push for 'third hand' residue as a prohibitionist perspective.

SilentBull
03-08-2012, 03:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhLhRAfDZi4

tod evans
03-08-2012, 03:23 PM
Oh man! What a money maker, outlawing smoking.

Just think of all the people who could be subjected to the "just-us" system.

GrahamUK
03-08-2012, 03:35 PM
Oh man! What a money maker, outlawing smoking.

Just think of all the people who could be subjected to the "just-us" system.

Check out this link... This is my local council/authority website


The new law affects enclosed or substantially enclosed public places and premises including the work place which are designated "No Smoking Premises". Works vehicles are also included.

You, your staff, customers and visitors are not allowed to smoke within your premises or vehicles. This includes previously designated smoking rooms.


http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/regulation/smokingban/

Thats shows some of the costs and penalties ... You are quite correct, its a money maker indeed

angelatc
03-08-2012, 03:48 PM
Smoking in the public sphere is not an exercise of liberty.

It's the definition of "public" that is creating havoc. This anti-smoking crap is part of the globalist agenda. In at least South American country, it's now illegal to smoke inside your own house.,

angelatc
03-08-2012, 03:51 PM
I was asthmatic as a child. At a young age even had to endure being placed upside down on an sloped ironing board for an hour a day. I know, I know, it was what the doctor ordered. LOL. My asthma cleared up the same time as I started smoking tobacco.
Correlation does not equal causation. I'm just saying.

Our air is now cleaner than it has been at any point in the last 100 years, yet asthma and allergies are reaching astronomical levels. (Heck. Maybe second hand smoke prevents austim too!)

angelatc
03-08-2012, 03:53 PM
Clearly you have lost all connection to reality, so I'll bow out at this point. Have a good afternoon! :)

Yeah, clearly I'm the one evading the issues using strawmen and hyperbole.

jmdrake
03-08-2012, 04:05 PM
It's the definition of "public" that is creating havoc. This anti-smoking crap is part of the globalist agenda. In at least South American country, it's now illegal to smoke inside your own house.,

In at least one place in the U.S. there is such a ban. I remember reading a story about that here at RPF a few years ago but can't find it now. In the meantime here is a proposed ban on smoking in a private home "if the public is served".

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2011/sep/07/8/pendleton-leaders-discuss-proposed-smoking-law-ar-2281479/

So having an in home accounting business means you give up your rights.

GrahamUK
03-08-2012, 04:09 PM
In at least one place in the U.S. there is such a ban. I remember reading a story about that here at RPF a few years ago but can't find it now. In the meantime here is a proposed ban on smoking in a private home "if the public is served".

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2011/sep/07/8/pendleton-leaders-discuss-proposed-smoking-law-ar-2281479/

So having an in home accounting business means you give up your rights.


Yep, thats how the law is in Britain.. You also have to pay to put no smoking signs everywhere..

jmdrake
03-08-2012, 04:18 PM
Museum of Science. Aquarium. Theatre. etc.


ah....but as Libertarians, we would banish the existence of such things, no? They would all be privately owned.

I'm not sure if I'm following your argument (Tod). Do you think that no privately owned museums, aquariums or theatres would try to cater to a public that's increasingly hostile to smoking? I know that hotels did. I remember the last time I checked into a hotel that allowed smoking. Actually I was checking my parents in. The smell of smoke was so bad that none of us could stand it and we had to go to a different hotel. All of the non-smoking rooms were taken. So the market was already punishing those who allowed smoking.

Still, for the life of me I don't understand why nobody ever considers smokeless ashtrays and electronic cigarettes as a compromise solution. As I am not a libertarian, I wouldn't be against a local ordinance that, rather than banning smoking, required facilities open to the general public (not private homes that have small businesses) to have smokeless ashtrays if they allow smoking. Take away the libertarian card that I don't have for saying that. If bars can be required to have smoke alarms and sprinkler systems for public safety, why not smokeless ashtrays? No I'm not convinced by the "smoking is really healthy for you" research, even if that research qualifies itself by saying "only organic cigarettes with no additives are healthy for you". But regardless, say if smoking isn't dangerous? Why would it hurt to have the smoke safely go into a smokeless ashtray? And if smoking is really dangerous, wouldn't a smokeless ashtray get rid of 90% of the potential damages from secondhand smoke? And electronic cigarettes would end 100% of any potential danger.

jmdrake
03-08-2012, 04:25 PM
Our air is now cleaner than it has been at any point in the last 100 years, yet asthma and allergies are reaching astronomical levels. (Heck. Maybe second hand smoke prevents austim too!)

Thanks to 24 hour cable, video games and the internet children spend more time indoors than ever before. In even the most polluted cities in the worst years for pollution indoor pollution was generally worse than outdoor pollution. Plus sunlight itself kills a lot of germs. We're raising a generation of vampires.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 04:29 PM
Still, for the life of me I don't understand why nobody ever considers smokeless ashtrays and electronic cigarettes as a compromise solution.

Because smokeless ashtrays do not adequately cover smoking. It does not allow for expulsion of leftover smoke. Electronic cigs just DO NOT compare. I actually tried them and made two months.
However, there are AMAZING air scrubbers. They actually lift all the smoke up and put it through a filter system. A bar in town actually spent $1 million on it less than a year before the ban. Worked great. A year later that was $1 million that went for naught in an attempt to accommodate everyone. Of course they weren't a part of the big-box restaurant lobby.

jmdrake
03-08-2012, 04:36 PM
Because smokeless ashtrays do not adequately cover smoking. It does not allow for expulsion of leftover smoke. Electronic cigs just DO NOT compare. I actually tried them and made two months.
However, there are AMAZING air scrubbers. They actually lift all the smoke up and put it through a filter system. A bar in town actually spent $1 million on it less than a year before the ban. Worked great. A year later that was $1 million that went for naught in an attempt to accommodate everyone. Of course they weren't a part of the big-box restaurant lobby.

Hmmmm....okay. I'm not a smoker so I have no idea what works and what doesn't. That sucks about that restaurant. They should have been allowed to at least test their system under the ban. Would the increase in business from smokers offset the cost of the system? But alas our "one size fits all" government doesn't allow for that. :(

Side note, I've been to one of those "hookah" bars and while there was a smell it wasn't noxious or overwhelming like going to a typical bar where people light up with cigarettes has been for me. I don't know if this is because the smoke is being filtered through water or if it's pure tobacco or if the little fruit pieces they put up top makes the difference.

http://www.freetobacco.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/hookah-session.jpg

AquaBuddha baby! ;)

donnay
03-08-2012, 04:39 PM
I'm not sure if I'm following your argument (Tod). Do you think that no privately owned museums, aquariums or theatres would try to cater to a public that's increasingly hostile to smoking? I know that hotels did. I remember the last time I checked into a hotel that allowed smoking. Actually I was checking my parents in. The smell of smoke was so bad that none of us could stand it and we had to go to a different hotel. All of the non-smoking rooms were taken. So the market was already punishing those who allowed smoking.

Still, for the life of me I don't understand why nobody ever considers smokeless ashtrays and electronic cigarettes as a compromise solution. As I am not a libertarian, I wouldn't be against a local ordinance that, rather than banning smoking, required facilities open to the general public (not private homes that have small businesses) to have smokeless ashtrays if they allow smoking. Take away the libertarian card that I don't have for saying that. If bars can be required to have smoke alarms and sprinkler systems for public safety, why not smokeless ashtrays? No I'm not convinced by the "smoking is really healthy for you" research, even if that research qualifies itself by saying "only organic cigarettes with no additives are healthy for you". But regardless, say if smoking isn't dangerous? Why would it hurt to have the smoke safely go into a smokeless ashtray? And if smoking is really dangerous, wouldn't a smokeless ashtray get rid of 90% of the potential damages from secondhand smoke? And electronic cigarettes would end 100% of any potential danger.

So let me ask you this-- why is there a push to ban E-cigarettes then? It's because of sheer ignorance. Because people have been conditioned, let's face it. It is the knee-jerk reactions and the genuflecting to authorities and how tyranny is so often allowed in because of the ignorance.

Federal regulators to formally ban e-cigarette use on planes
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/02/federal-regulators-to-formally-ban-e-cigarette-use-on-planes/142656/1

E-Cigarette Ban Under Consideration In NY
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/24/e-cigarette-ban-under-consideration-in-new-york-state/

San Francisco considers banning e-cigarettes
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8089763

Boston Bans E-Cigarettes in Workplaces, Just Because
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/02/boston-bans-e-cigarettes-in-workplaces-f


So go right ahead, drink you FDA approved aspartame drinks. Go ahead take those FDA vaccines. Go out to dinner and eat that food laced with FDA approved MSG. And don't forget to drink lots and lots of FDA approved sodium fluoridated water. Because government cares about your health!

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 04:46 PM
Would the increase in business from smokers offset the cost of the system? But alas our "one size fits all" government doesn't allow for that. :(

A testament to their business acumen they were able to eat a million dollar loss. But, yeah, they 'banked' on creating an atmosphere for smokers and non-smokers alike. They were pretty pissed that as dues paying members of the Rest. Ass. they weren't informed on the pushed changes.


Side note, I've been to one of those "hookah" bars and while there was a smell it wasn't noxious or overwhelming like going to a typical bar where people light up with cigarettes has been for me. I don't know if this is because the smoke is being filtered through water or if it's pure tobacco or if the little fruit pieces they put up top makes the difference.
AquaBuddha baby! ;)

Yeah hookah is a different creature entirely.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 04:50 PM
Meh, my grandfather lived well into his nineties. Smoked hand rolled every day. Filterless. Would that I could live so long and be active and coherent till the end.

My grandfather, 96, up to three packs a day of B and H.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 05:03 PM
My grandfather, 96, up to three packs a day of B and H.

Correlation does not imply causation. :p

Danke
03-08-2012, 05:08 PM
My grandfather, 96, up to three packs a day of B and H.

Is he related to that bad-ass Smedley Butler?

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:10 PM
Take the 2nd Amendment. We have the right to bear arms. But suppose most everyone who bore arms went around shooting things (like signs, parked cars, windows, etc) and people for the fun of it instead of behaving responsibly? How long do you think the 2nd Amendment would remain a part of the Constitution? It would have been repealed long ago. True, there are many people who would like to do away with it no matter if everyone were responsible with their weapons, but there would be many many more if the vast majority of gun owners weren't so responsible. Those in favor of gun ownership wouldn't be able to convince enough people of the importance of gun ownership.

I'm glad you brought that up.

All across the country, people are losing places to shoot and ranges, both public and private, are closing, because of people using the exact same argument you are using against tobacco.

Modern firearms cartridges are deadly toxic stew of a whole slew of dangerous chemicals, from lead, to lead styphnate to nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, nitroguanidine, nitroxyethylnitramine, tetramethylolcyclopentanone, di-ethylene glycol dinitrate and acetyl cellulose, just to mention a few things.

And that's before being fired and creating all the toxic by products of combustion in addition to slinging lead particles everywhere.

And lets not even speak of the noise, that, were it not for onerous ATF regulations, could be easily mitigated.

Since everybody has the red ass over every little thing that might disturb them, instead of just shrugging it off, before long there will be no place left to shoot.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:14 PM
Is he related to that bad-ass Smedley Butler?

No, (edited TMI)

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:17 PM
Hmmmm....okay. I'm not a smoker so I have no idea what works and what doesn't. That sucks about that restaurant. They should have been allowed to at least test their system under the ban. Would the increase in business from smokers offset the cost of the system? But alas our "one size fits all" government doesn't allow for that. :(

Side note, I've been to one of those "hookah" bars and while there was a smell it wasn't noxious or overwhelming like going to a typical bar where people light up with cigarettes has been for me. I don't know if this is because the smoke is being filtered through water or if it's pure tobacco or if the little fruit pieces they put up top makes the difference.

http://www.freetobacco.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/hookah-session.jpg

AquaBuddha baby! ;)

It's the paper, the additives and the enhancers that are added to cigarettes that most people, unaware, are objecting to.

Pure, dried, unflavored, organic tobacco smoked in a pipe or cigar smells completely different than a cigarette.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:23 PM
An apartment is not your property. If the property owner only wants to rent to non-smokers, that's certainly his right. (Personally, I hate the smell of curry.....)

I'm not speaking of owners prohibiting smoking, or pets or whatever in property that they rent.

I'm talking about the state banning it, in any multi unit configuration.

Do you own your townhouse or condo?

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:24 PM
And what about that bacon or pork chop smell offending Muslims or Jews?

dannno
03-08-2012, 05:25 PM
Side note, I've been to one of those "hookah" bars and while there was a smell it wasn't noxious or overwhelming like going to a typical bar where people light up with cigarettes has been for me. I don't know if this is because the smoke is being filtered through water or if it's pure tobacco or if the little fruit pieces they put up top makes the difference.


Well they start out with premium tobacco, then they soak it in flavored molasses. It also gets more of a vaprozing action and less of a burning action because they use a charcoal on top and so you are just sucking massive amounts of heat through the tobacco.

dannno
03-08-2012, 05:26 PM
And what about that bacon or pork chop smell offending Muslims or Jews?

I'm really allergic to dogs and a lot of perfumes, I'd never try to get either of those banned..

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 05:31 PM
I'm really allergic to dogs and a lot of perfumes, I'd never try to get either of those banned..

There is a hamburger chain called 'Five Guys' that served free peanuts to shell and eat in line while waiting for your order. They were sued and had to put up signs warning of peanut allergies. That was awhile ago. I imagine they are peanut free today.

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 05:31 PM
I'm really allergic to dogs and a lot of perfumes, I'd never try to get either of those banned..

Me too! I think we both might be allergic to Facism and Socialism!

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:35 PM
Me too! I think we both might be allergic to Facism and Socialism!

Gives me the shits, personally.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:36 PM
There is a hamburger chain called 'Five Guys' that served free peanuts to shell and eat in line while waiting for your order. They were sued and had to put up signs warning of peanut allergies. That was awhile ago. I imagine they are peanut free today.

I imagine the Texas Road House chain will get sued too.

donnay
03-08-2012, 05:39 PM
There is a hamburger chain called 'Five Guys' that served free peanuts to shell and eat in line while waiting for your order. They were sued and had to put up signs warning of peanut allergies. That was awhile ago. I imagine they are peanut free today.

The one in Manchester, New Hampshire still has peanuts.

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 05:45 PM
I imagine the Texas Road House chain will get sued too.

Slippery slope. ;)

http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/185k-award-more-than-peanuts-for-restaurant-102708.html

"Angela Bishoff appears to be the first plaintiff ever to win a slip-and-fall case involving a restaurant's peanut shell-throwing policy. She broke her kneecap after slipping on “peanuts and peanut debris” at the Temple, Texas, location of the Texas Roadhouse (Nasdaq: TXRH) chain."

It won't stop at peanut allergies...it never does........

http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/has-texas-roadhouse-given-up-on-the-food-allergy-and-gluten-free-community/

"Texas Roadhouse is already “unfriendly” to those with a peanut allergy, as are a few other chains that believe peanuts strewn about the restaurant is a key part of their image (see Five Guys Burgers & Fries… and peanuts, and more peanuts, and more!). I don’t begrudge them that – they have every right to create the image they want. However, the combination of these seems to suggest that Texas Roadhouse understands they cannot safely handle any food allergies or intolerances. If they don’t believe they are prepared to prevent cross-contamination when it comes to gluten-free, then they are obviously not comfortable enough to welcome any diner with food allergies either."

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 05:45 PM
The one in Manchester, New Hampshire still has peanuts.

Be sure to not tell the Socialist with the Peanut Allergy, you know what comes after that.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:46 PM
The one in Manchester, New Hampshire still has peanuts.

So does Portland, Maine.

Wanna go? I could go for one.

Om nom nom nom nom...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sWxJMh4N3KM/SNrmeZG--PI/AAAAAAAAAJY/I7asoOz75Lw/s400/five+guys.jpg

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:47 PM
Fuck me running...


Slippery slope. ;)

http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/185k-award-more-than-peanuts-for-restaurant-102708.html

"Angela Bishoff appears to be the first plaintiff ever to win a slip-and-fall case involving a restaurant's peanut shell-throwing policy. She broke her kneecap after slipping on “peanuts and peanut debris” at the Temple, Texas, location of the Texas Roadhouse (Nasdaq: TXRH) chain."

It won't stop at peanut allergies...it never does........

http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/has-texas-roadhouse-given-up-on-the-food-allergy-and-gluten-free-community/

"Texas Roadhouse is already “unfriendly” to those with a peanut allergy, as are a few other chains that believe peanuts strewn about the restaurant is a key part of their image (see Five Guys Burgers & Fries… and peanuts, and more peanuts, and more!). I don’t begrudge them that – they have every right to create the image they want. However, the combination of these seems to suggest that Texas Roadhouse understands they cannot safely handle any food allergies or intolerances. If they don’t believe they are prepared to prevent cross-contamination when it comes to gluten-free, then they are obviously not comfortable enough to welcome any diner with food allergies either."

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 05:48 PM
The one in Manchester, New Hampshire still has peanuts.

Seems they are continuing the fight. However, it is only a matter of time. They are, after all, a 'public' establishment. And subject to the laws imposed by the 'majority' of the public.

donnay
03-08-2012, 05:52 PM
Be sure to not tell the Socialist with the Peanut Allergy, you know what comes after that.

Mums the word! :D

donnay
03-08-2012, 05:53 PM
So does Portland, Maine.

Wanna go? I could go for one.

Om nom nom nom nom...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sWxJMh4N3KM/SNrmeZG--PI/AAAAAAAAAJY/I7asoOz75Lw/s400/five+guys.jpg

Are you asking me out on a date??

phill4paul
03-08-2012, 05:55 PM
Are you asking me out on a date??

You two quit with your food pwrn and flirting and go find a Five Guys...................

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 05:56 PM
This is why we fail.

Look how easily this has divided us, who should be in solidarity yet will argue this non stop.

Meanwhile, the ruling elite are running around saying that "international permission" is all that is needed to launch the US war machine.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365884-PANETTA-INTERNATIONAL-PERMISSION’-TRUMPS-CONGRESSIONAL-PERMISSION-FOR-MILITARY-ACTIONS

Fuck me people, light up a cigarette, smoke a bowl, have a shot, or jog around the block and let's focus on whose asses really need to be kicked here, please?

Because I'm pretty sure even a non smoker would prefer a smoke filled barroom over the air at Gitmo, which is where we are going to fucking end up if we don't put the brakes on this shit.

angelatc
03-08-2012, 05:58 PM
I'm not speaking of owners prohibiting smoking, or pets or whatever in property that they rent.

I'm talking about the state banning it, in any multi unit configuration.

Do you own your townhouse or condo?

The problem, I have with the townhouse / condo clause is changing the terms of the contract after the purchase. But that's the chance you take when you buy a condo or townhouse, which is one of the best reasons not to buy a condo or a townhouse.

pcosmar
03-08-2012, 06:04 PM
Fuck me running...

LOL

Have not heard that phrase in a while.

:D

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 06:05 PM
There is a hamburger chain called 'Five Guys' that served free peanuts to shell and eat in line while waiting for your order. They were sued and had to put up signs warning of peanut allergies. That was awhile ago. I imagine they are peanut free today.

They all have peanuts still, but their warning sign even warns about taking the peanuts out of the restaurant and into the public because neighbors might have peanut allergies.

There was a study not too long ago, where they actually tested kids who's parents claimed they had peanut allergies, only about 25% of the kids actually had the allergy, the rest were parents self-diagnosing...

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 06:06 PM
The problem, I have with the townhouse / condo clause is changing the terms of the contract after the purchase. But that's the chance you take when you buy a condo or townhouse, which is one of the best reasons not to buy a condo or a townhouse.

I agree and I never would, but once you go down that road, you really never own anything anyway.

Got a mortgage?

Then the bank can dictate to you.

Home paid off?

Then the state can dictate to you, because, in reality, none of us own anything, we just rent from the state through property taxation and they could claim smoking lowers the value of the home, which would lower their tax revenue. (Kelo v. New London)

While I understand the concept, there has to be some consideration: whether you contract a flophouse room for rent or buy a multi million dollar home, once that door closes, it is your "castle" and you should have the right to do anything legal within, and only a duly sworn warrant should allow the state or the owner to search for anything illegal.

If that is too onerous, then don't rent rooms.

Revolution9
03-08-2012, 06:07 PM
I voted. I'm surprised at how many "yes" votes there are, though. Don't people get that all this would do is hurt the businesses, hurt the customers, and increase law enforcement costs? Everyone loses.

Realistically, I stopped going to bars when they told me I can't smoke a cig with my beer. I drank at home. Then that got boring so I stopped drinking. I still smoke and enjoy it when I am working on hard core coding and intense art. Alcohol does not allow those activities and makes me just surf instead of work.

Rev9

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 06:08 PM
Are you asking me out on a date??

Of course I am...probably get turned down though....

donnay
03-08-2012, 06:18 PM
Of course I am...probably get turned down though....


http://www.glasbergen.com/wp-content/gallery/dating-amp-romance/mar82.gif

DamianTV
03-08-2012, 07:06 PM
I think the lady in that cartoon is having an Affair with her Neighbor... hood.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2012, 07:50 PM
I think the lady in that cartoon is having an Affair with her Neighbor... hood.

LOL

The Gold Standard
03-08-2012, 08:03 PM
Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

Who gives a fuck what the majority likes? Does the majority own someone's bar or restaurant?

otherone
03-08-2012, 08:38 PM
WHO has the pOwEr to enforce what we CAN and CAN NOT do?

Shorty Dawkins
03-08-2012, 10:20 PM
Liberty is about making choices, not being told what we can and cannot do. Provided we harm no one else's equal right to make their choices. The property owner should be able to make the choice, not the Government. Denying freedom to one person denies it to all. It is a simple concept that many refuse to understand. Tyranny comes in many guises. Let's get real, shall we? Let's face this world honestly. Let's look in our neighbor's eye and treat him/her with respect. We don't need Elitists telling us what to do. Haven't you noticed whatever they decide for "us" always benefits them? The "Great Awakening" starts with one person and spreads outward. Awaken yourself, then assist others to awaken. There is no great secret to how it can work.

Shorty Dawkins

donnay
03-08-2012, 10:24 PM
Liberty is about making choices, not being told what we can and cannot do. Provided we harm no one else's equal right to make their choices. The property owner should be able to make the choice, not the Government. Denying freedom to one person denies it to all. It is a simple concept that many refuse to understand. Tyranny comes in many guises. Let's get real, shall we? Let's face this world honestly. Let's look in our neighbor's eye and treat him/her with respect. We don't need Elitists telling us what to do. Haven't you noticed whatever they decide for "us" always benefits them? The "Great Awakening" starts with one person and spreads outward. Awaken yourself, then assist others to awaken. There is no great secret to how it can work.

Shorty Dawkins

Well said! +rep

kezt777
03-09-2012, 12:15 AM
I would like to be able to visit hospitals and bars where people aren't coughing and sneezing some kind of nasty, life-threatening bacterial/viral infections. Can we make some laws against going out in public when you have these conditions? (not really serious here, but something to think about)

Oh boy I am just coming into this thread and am miles behind lol. I posted in the Health topics about cigarette warning labels in Canada and other such fun about smoking bans. I do not think that people should smoke in areas where others are reasonably expected to be without it being a choice - hospital, govt buildings like to pay municipal bills or whatnot, police stations, clinics, grocery stores, clothing stores, etc etc. But I do not think that a private business owner should be forced to comply with smoking bans or other such regulations. I posted in my other thread about how things have gone in my city (in Alberta) and it is actually quite shocking to look at how much money businesses had to spent in order to comply with smoking laws (ex, setting up a separate area, then setting up a completely sealed off separate area, like with glass walls or something, then putting in a completely separate air system so the smoke from the smoking area does not recirculate with the rest of the establishment -- and then after all that money was spent, smoking in all buildings that the general public enters was banned. Talk about a huge pile of money wasted while following these plans). yikes. In my city, a private bar or restaurant owner is not even supposed to smoke in his office, even after hours. Some places had to change the coverings on all their furniture as well, because it was deemed that the carcinogens could stay stuck in the fabric for a long time.

This also reminds me of when I was in Ireland in 2005. I was there for 4 days and reading various news papers each day... One huge headline caught my eye, saying that 2000 pubs had closed already, in the one year since the smoking bans were put in place (2004). But over the years, I have seen endless accounts stating that the smoking bans in Ireland (and England) had very little affect, if any. I couldn't figure that out - I saw the headline with my own eyes, with a huge list of pubs and their towns/cities. Yet the media kept saying that it had little to no effect. Um... okay?

Then I just read an article in the guardian UK about how the Labour govt is concerned about the number of pub closures and how, since pubs had to give 30% of their profits in taxes, the govt is losing a huge amount of tax revenue per closure and wants to get things going to help pubs.....

And I read another account from 2011 where a TV chef over in the UK (Antony Worrall Thompson) wants their govt to relax it's smoking bans because of the major impact on pubs. Another point in that post was that the 10 million smokers over there pay 10 billion in taxes and should therefore be allowed to smoke in some public areas (or public houses, etc) after putting so much money into the coffers. It's like 'take our money and use it, but dictate where we can sit or stand to do it'.

I saw mention in another post in this thread as well about how suddenly in recent years there is an influx of allergies and asthma blamed on smoking, when in the more distant past you just did not hear that. I remember when I was a teenager and people were smoking on the city bus. Sometimes it did bother me, if someone right in front of me was doing it, or in winter when the windows were closed, but it happened. And there were smoke butts right on the floor where people stamped them out. And I remember in elevators, grocery stores, government offices, etc etc. Literally everywhere. You'd think there would have been a bus or elevator full of choking gagging people all the time, what with all of the nasty mean smokers blowing it in everyone's faces constantly. I think the only places people were not allowed to smoke was in schools (aside from the teacher's lounge, where it was allowed), and on hospital wards. People could smoke in the lobby and such, which I think it just plain silly, but they did it. Now suddenly people are saying 'I have asthma, could you put that out please'. I never heard that before in my life. I did not like it when it was in my face, but I did not hear others coughing their brains out at every event.

Regardless though, I firmly believe it should come down to private property rights. It is starting now here where people cannot smoke in their cars with children. They use children as the excuse but in at least one Canadian city, you can't smoke in your car if there is a carseat - even if a child is not in it! So go figure that one out. I watched a police officer craning his neck around and looking ANGRILY at my boyfriend and I as we were driving past him a couple of months ago, because my bf had his ciggy out the car window and at first we could not figure out what this cop's problem was. He was glaring and twisting around - then I followed his line of sight. He was trying to see into the car seat in the back to see if a child was in it (no). He was driving without care and attention while looking at us bad bad mean nasty smokers. Unreal. That is getting completely ridiculous in my opinion.

Editing to add: my mother is a non smoker, unless you count the 6 months back when she was 19 when she dabbled in smoking. Anyway she is 66 and has been having lung problems for several months. She blamed me, and her smoker friend. She said 'I am sure that I am having these problems because my friend smoked in her car and house while we hung around together for 15 years'. She kept quoting smoking reports at me. Nice to make me feel to blame for her breathing issues 20 years after I moved out of her house. But anyway, I kept asking her to keep going to the doc until they get to the bottom of this. Last month they finally took a sample of the crud she coughs up, and a weird bacteria showed up that normally is not in the lung. She was on meds for 3 weeks and felt better very quickly, with no symptoms at all now. But - she still blames me and her friend. Gee thanks mumma. And thanks to the media and 'science' giving her all the fodder to blame us. I cannot say that it's NOT my fault, but she cannot say that it IS either.

Anti Federalist
03-09-2012, 12:30 AM
Two of the very best "pro smoking" pieces ever written, I think.

By Joe Jackson. (yes, Joe Jackson the singer)


Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State
http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf


The Smoking Issue
http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm

My articles in the New York Times and UK Daily Telegraph, protesting smoking bans and antismoking hysteria, have attracted a huge amount of attention. Since this has unfortunately become such a contentious issue, and since I'm now constantly asked to discuss it, I'm going to take this opportunity to set out my position as clearly as I can, without the ‘filter' of editors, the time constraints of radio, etc. This essay was primarily written for my website, but it can be freely downloaded, copied and circulated. When printed, it should run to around 12 pages.

I'm ‘pro-choice' on smoking, not just because I want to smoke (I don't even smoke very much) but also because I'm concerned about certain worrying political and cultural trends. The antismoking movement is on such a roll at the moment, and smoking has been so thoroughly demonised, that some of what I have to say is bound to raise a few eyebrows. All I can say is that my views are carefully considered and extensively researched.

(1) DANGERS OF SMOKING

Two or three years ago I considered giving up my own moderate enjoyment of tobacco because of the constant barrage of horrific statistics. But antismoking propaganda in the USA (I was living mostly in New York) seemed so overblown, so hysterical, that I became skeptical. So instead of giving up smoking, I started doing research. At first my mind was pretty open; I half expected to find that smoking was even worse than I thought, and I decided that, since I wasn't a hardcore nicotine junkie, I could live without it. Instead, I've been astonished, again and again, by how flimsy much of the antismoking evidence really is. By now I'm absolutely convinced that the dangers of smoking (and ‘secondhand smoke' in particular) are being greatly exaggerated, for a number of reasons, many of which have less to do with health than with politics, money and fashion.

People used to be guided by intuition, experience, observation, moderation, pleasure, folklore, the testimony of friends and acquaintances, and their family history. Increasingly, though, we're expected to be guided by Government Statistics. The problem is that so much of what we're told is politicised, out of context, out of proportion, or just plain false. The bald statement ‘Smoking Kills!' makes us skeptical right away, since we can see for ourselves that in most cases, it doesn't.

donnay
03-09-2012, 01:35 AM
Two of the very best "pro smoking" pieces ever written, I think.

By Joe Jackson. (yes, Joe Jackson the singer)


Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State
http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf


The Smoking Issue
http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm

My articles in the New York Times and UK Daily Telegraph, protesting smoking bans and antismoking hysteria, have attracted a huge amount of attention. Since this has unfortunately become such a contentious issue, and since I'm now constantly asked to discuss it, I'm going to take this opportunity to set out my position as clearly as I can, without the ‘filter' of editors, the time constraints of radio, etc. This essay was primarily written for my website, but it can be freely downloaded, copied and circulated. When printed, it should run to around 12 pages.

I'm ‘pro-choice' on smoking, not just because I want to smoke (I don't even smoke very much) but also because I'm concerned about certain worrying political and cultural trends. The antismoking movement is on such a roll at the moment, and smoking has been so thoroughly demonised, that some of what I have to say is bound to raise a few eyebrows. All I can say is that my views are carefully considered and extensively researched.

(1) DANGERS OF SMOKING

Two or three years ago I considered giving up my own moderate enjoyment of tobacco because of the constant barrage of horrific statistics. But antismoking propaganda in the USA (I was living mostly in New York) seemed so overblown, so hysterical, that I became skeptical. So instead of giving up smoking, I started doing research. At first my mind was pretty open; I half expected to find that smoking was even worse than I thought, and I decided that, since I wasn't a hardcore nicotine junkie, I could live without it. Instead, I've been astonished, again and again, by how flimsy much of the antismoking evidence really is. By now I'm absolutely convinced that the dangers of smoking (and ‘secondhand smoke' in particular) are being greatly exaggerated, for a number of reasons, many of which have less to do with health than with politics, money and fashion.

People used to be guided by intuition, experience, observation, moderation, pleasure, folklore, the testimony of friends and acquaintances, and their family history. Increasingly, though, we're expected to be guided by Government Statistics. The problem is that so much of what we're told is politicised, out of context, out of proportion, or just plain false. The bald statement ‘Smoking Kills!' makes us skeptical right away, since we can see for ourselves that in most cases, it doesn't.


Great articles! The question everyone needs to ask is, if governments track record is so dismal, why trust them when they say smoking is extremely bad for you? Yet they said, "the air was safe to breathe after 9/11"--when we know it wasn't!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxdttHY59b4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md-hUlkh0Vg&feature=related

Cutlerzzz
03-09-2012, 02:01 AM
I'm guessing you're in your 20's - 30's. The children of the "ME!" generation are a nasty lot.

Yeah, and your generation is a bastion of Liberty, right?

liberty2897
03-09-2012, 03:02 AM
Yeah, and your generation is a bastion of Liberty, right?

Lets not fall into this whole age-gap thing. I'm right in the middle. I could be pissed at the old people for being duped by the GOP (neocons) or I could be pissed at the young people for not showing up to vote lately. Truth is that we liberty minded people need to stick together regardless of our age. Doesn't matter if you are 18 or 90. If you are willing to fight for the cause of freedom, you are a freedom fighter. Watching those George Carlin videos lately in a couple of threads made me realize that you can be well into your 70's and be 10 times sharper minded than the majority of people on the planet. We should focus on making this country free again. Then we can worry about the small shit like who can smoke where.

Cutlerzzz
03-09-2012, 03:30 AM
Lets not fall into this whole age-gap thing.

I'm not.

liberty2897
03-09-2012, 05:15 AM
I'm not.

Cutlerzzz,

Sorry, didn't mean to direct that at you specifically. I'm guilty of letting events of the past few days get to me. Time to move on and get back to furthering the cause of liberty.

Anti Federalist
03-09-2012, 11:48 PM
////

rockerrockstar
03-09-2012, 11:57 PM
Personally I like the smoke bans because I don't smoke. I think of it in terms that it gives me the right to go out in public and not breath in another persons smoke. If they want to smoke they can go outside. It is freedom until that freedom invades another persons freedom or heath. I think that these smoke bans are justified.

I don't know anything about the failed state wide ban that could have been too much.

kezt777
03-10-2012, 12:09 AM
Personally I like the smoke bans because I don't smoke. I think of it in terms that it gives me the right to go out in public and not breath in another persons smoke. If they want to smoke they can go outside. It is freedom until that freedom invades another persons freedom or heath. I think that these smoke bans are justified.

I don't know anything about the failed state wide ban that could have been too much.

They can go outside where? Even outdoors in wide open spaces, there are smoking bans going into effect. There is also a town in California where a couple is trying to get the council to consider having her neighbours stop smoking outside on their own patio because the smoke goes in their yard and she and another family member have asthma. Who knows if that will go through, but even the fact it's being considered boggles my mind.

I had a premature infant, and when we brought him home he only weighed 3 lbs 9oz. We rarely took him outside because even a mild sickness could end him up in hospital again or worse - our neighbours have a firepit. There were nights when I had to shut all the windows, even though it was sweltering hot in the house, because the wind kept shifting and blowing it straight in our bedrooms. I did not go over and yell at them because they cannot control the wind anymore than I can. I could have asked them to just put it out, but it's their yard and I choose to live in a city, so I have to put up with neighbours. at the same time, to add fun to the game, the neighbour on the other side decided to let his teenage son's band practice in the garage. It was an awful racket, VERY VERY loud at times (and we listen to metal, so us saying it was loud MEANS it was seriously loud lol), but again I didnt say anything. It was afternoon or evening, before the watershed time for 'be quiet', and I was a teenager once too and probably drove my neighbours crazy at times.

Back to smoking, there are bans going into second and third readings in my city for banning smoking in all public parks. If people start pushing that you cannot smoke in your own backyard because it blows into the neighbour's yard and/or house, what's next for smokers? I understand that it's not fun but as someone else stated in this thread or another earlier, there are many who go out in public while sick, and pass their germs around, but they don't or can't get banned because it is hard to prove. Having a ciggy in your hand is pretty obvious so they can go after you. There are bans in effect right now to fine people for smoking in their own cars if their own children are present. And even if they are not, but there is evidence in the car of a child, such as a car seat (even if empty). I can't even keep track of all the rules now. there are many people who are allergic or sensitive to perfumes - how far should regulations go to thwart that? Some people have a physical reaction to it - wheezing, asthma, watery eyes, sneezing, even rashes... so perhaps no one should give off any odor whatsoever when they go outside of their homes?

that's all I caution - that it can open doors for other regulations, bylaws, and laws to come in. Start with one group and it sets a precedent for another soon afterward.

vechorik
03-10-2012, 06:31 AM
Personally I like the smoke bans because I don't smoke. I think of it in terms that it gives me the right to go out in public and not breath in another persons smoke. If they want to smoke they can go outside. It is freedom until that freedom invades another persons freedom or heath. I think that these smoke bans are justified.

I don't know anything about the failed state wide ban that could have been too much.

Jeeesh! -- Once again, what gives you the right to come on MY PROPERTY (home or business) and demand what YOU want? Doesn't that interfere with MY rights? I'm sick of non-smokers trying to rule the world. Yes, smoking is bad. That still doesn't give you the right to rule over MY PROPERTY RIGHTS.

donnay
03-10-2012, 06:53 AM
They can go outside where? Even outdoors in wide open spaces, there are smoking bans going into effect. There is also a town in California where a couple is trying to get the council to consider having her neighbours stop smoking outside on their own patio because the smoke goes in their yard and she and another family member have asthma. Who knows if that will go through, but even the fact it's being considered boggles my mind.

I had a premature infant, and when we brought him home he only weighed 3 lbs 9oz. We rarely took him outside because even a mild sickness could end him up in hospital again or worse - our neighbours have a firepit. There were nights when I had to shut all the windows, even though it was sweltering hot in the house, because the wind kept shifting and blowing it straight in our bedrooms. I did not go over and yell at them because they cannot control the wind anymore than I can. I could have asked them to just put it out, but it's their yard and I choose to live in a city, so I have to put up with neighbours. at the same time, to add fun to the game, the neighbour on the other side decided to let his teenage son's band practice in the garage. It was an awful racket, VERY VERY loud at times (and we listen to metal, so us saying it was loud MEANS it was seriously loud lol), but again I didnt say anything. It was afternoon or evening, before the watershed time for 'be quiet', and I was a teenager once too and probably drove my neighbours crazy at times.

Back to smoking, there are bans going into second and third readings in my city for banning smoking in all public parks. If people start pushing that you cannot smoke in your own backyard because it blows into the neighbour's yard and/or house, what's next for smokers? I understand that it's not fun but as someone else stated in this thread or another earlier, there are many who go out in public while sick, and pass their germs around, but they don't or can't get banned because it is hard to prove. Having a ciggy in your hand is pretty obvious so they can go after you. There are bans in effect right now to fine people for smoking in their own cars if their own children are present. And even if they are not, but there is evidence in the car of a child, such as a car seat (even if empty). I can't even keep track of all the rules now. there are many people who are allergic or sensitive to perfumes - how far should regulations go to thwart that? Some people have a physical reaction to it - wheezing, asthma, watery eyes, sneezing, even rashes... so perhaps no one should give off any odor whatsoever when they go outside of their homes?

that's all I caution - that it can open doors for other regulations, bylaws, and laws to come in. Start with one group and it sets a precedent for another soon afterward.

In the state of Maine they already passed laws that if you have minor children in your car and you smoke you will be fined if caught. They always use the children as an excuse to clamp down on peoples liberty! Both my parents smoked when I was a child and I was not a sickly child. What makes children sick are the FDA approved vaccines and pharmaceuticals.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:17 AM
I voted. I'm surprised at how many "yes" votes there are, though. Don't people get that all this would do is hurt the businesses, hurt the customers, and increase law enforcement costs? Everyone loses.

I live in Ct, right on the Mass. and RI borders. ALL these states have smoking bans in rest. and bars, etc...
They got it right. It didn't hurt anyones business because EVERYONE is playing by the same rules. That's number one.

Number 2 is this - the EMPLOYEES of those businesses DO have a right to work in an environment that is not dangerous to their health and second hand smoke is most definitely a danger to their health.

Third - as a patron and an asthma sufferer, I can assure you that if anything, the smoking bans INCREASED business. Smokers are not put off by these bans - in fact, you never hear a peep about it here and non-smokers can actually go to a restaurant or bar and ENJOY their meal or drinks. I could never go to a restaurant or bar before they changed the law because I couldn't breath. Now I can, and I am damn happy about it.

Somehow this argument got framed into an argument about liberty and property rights but somewhere in that discussion, the people (the majority of the people) who don't smoke, get left out of the discussion. How about THEIR RIGHTS? How about THEIR LIBERTY? I have a right to enter a PUBLIC establishment and NOT choke on the dangerous gases emitted by a proven dangerous product. Mass. dealt with this by making it so that "private" clubs could allow smoking. So, if a bar wants to allow smoking, it is private. You must join and you know when you join that smoking is permitted and you make that CHOICE.

This whole idea that smokers have all the rights to pollute and destroy the quiet enjoyment of other patrons is a bullshit argument. Likewise, the business owner has the responsibility to provide a safe environment for all of his patrons.

I've also heard the argument that non-smokers could "choose" to not go into that establishment but that is a bullshit argument as well. BEFORE the Northeast states changed their laws, you would be extremely hard pressed to find an establishment that didn't allow smoking - in all actuality, except in a few urban areas, it was impossible. So everyone here who is fighting tooth and nail to save the rights of smokers to injure other people through their actions, perhaps you should start considering the rights of the people around them.

vechorik
03-10-2012, 07:18 AM
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/64754_10150611560808207_79085878206_9405862_685241 767_n.jpg

..........therefore, the Constitution doesn't allow YOU to run MY life!

vechorik
03-10-2012, 07:20 AM
.......................
Number 2 is this - the EMPLOYEES of those businesses DO have a right to work in an environment that is not dangerous to their health and second hand smoke is most definitely a danger to their health.



OSHA demands that smoking is done in certain SMOKING AREAS -- has been since the 1970's.
Employees can work anywhere they want -- just stay out of SMOKING AREAS

tod evans
03-10-2012, 07:32 AM
For you "pro-legislation" folks;

From whom do you draw your authority to attempt to legislate my behavior on my property?

Better yet, why would you want to?

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:36 AM
They can go outside where? Even outdoors in wide open spaces, there are smoking bans going into effect. There is also a town in California where a couple is trying to get the council to consider having her neighbours stop smoking outside on their own patio because the smoke goes in their yard and she and another family member have asthma. Who knows if that will go through, but even the fact it's being considered boggles my mind.



Think about that for a minute. Dr. Paul has said on NUMEROUS occasions that we don't need the EPA because civil suits would prevent polluters from invading the property rights of others (people and towns/cities and states). Isn't this EXACTLY the same? If the neighbor is having THEIR property rights invaded by "pollution" from their neighbors. Not that I agree with this particular instance, but isn't the argument identical?

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:37 AM
OSHA demands that smoking is done in certain SMOKING AREAS -- has been since the 1970's.
Employees can work anywhere they want -- just stay out of SMOKING AREAS

Um, when the patrons are the smokers and the employee is required to serve them, that isn't exactly an option now, is it?

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:38 AM
For you "pro-legislation" folks;

From whom do you draw your authority to attempt to legislate my behavior on my property?

Better yet, why would you want to?

They are not legislating YOUR behavior on YOUR property. They are regulating behavior by all people in a PUBLIC place, for the specific reason that smoking is DANGEROUS to others.

vechorik
03-10-2012, 07:39 AM
They are not legislating YOUR behavior on YOUR property. They are regulating behavior by all people in a PUBLIC place, for the specific reason that smoking is DANGEROUS to others.

Businesses are NOT a public place -- Businesses are PRIVATE PROPERTY (mine surely is), just as my home is private property.

Courthouses, and PUBLIC places -- want to ban smoking? I won't say a word, but when it comes to PRIVATE property, don't tread on me!

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:40 AM
Jeeesh! -- Once again, what gives you the right to come on MY PROPERTY (home or business) and demand what YOU want? Doesn't that interfere with MY rights? I'm sick of non-smokers trying to rule the world. Yes, smoking is bad. That still doesn't give you the right to rule over MY PROPERTY RIGHTS.

then don't open your property to the public because people who wish to patronize your business for whatever reason, don't want to have THEIR RIGHTS stepped on my people who don't seem to understand that their behavior IS violating the other persons rights.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:41 AM
Businesses are NOT a public place -- Businesses are PRIVATE PROPERTY (mine surely is), just as my home is private property.

Not if you open it to the public. As soon as you open it to the public it is no longer "private". If you want your property to be "private" then close the doors.

vechorik
03-10-2012, 07:42 AM
Think about that for a minute. Dr. Paul has said on NUMEROUS occasions that we don't need the EPA because civil suits would prevent polluters from invading the property rights of others (people and towns/cities and states). Isn't this EXACTLY the same? If the neighbor is having THEIR property rights invaded by "pollution" from their neighbors. Not that I agree with this particular instance, but isn't the argument identical?

Sure, it's the same. You gonna sue a smoker next door? Go for it. Hope I'm on the jury.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:44 AM
Sure, it's the same. You gonna sue a smoker next door? Go for it. Hope I'm on the jury.

Just trying to make the point. Your rights only extend to the point where they infringe on the rights of others.

vechorik
03-10-2012, 07:49 AM
Um, when the patrons are the smokers and the employee is required to serve them, that isn't exactly an option now, is it?

The employee's choice of where they work -- and besides, who made you God to control the business owner as well as the employee?
Guess you believe in legislating morality as well.

I'm relatively new to Dr. Paul, but even I understand property rights.
I'm amazed you could have hung around here since 2007 and not be more enlightened.
My last post on the matter. Wish you well.

otherone
03-10-2012, 07:50 AM
Not if you open it to the public. As soon as you open it to the public it is no longer "private". If you want your property to be "private" then close the doors.

Actually, you have it backwards. A private individual is not compelled to enter another individual's property. I cannot stand the foul stench coming from "Yankee Candle" at the mall...so I don't go in there. I don't HAVE to. It's called 'freedom'. :p

donnay
03-10-2012, 07:54 AM
Just trying to make the point. Your rights only extend to the point where they infringe on the rights of others.

Governments have no rights, then why do they continuously infringe on peoples rights?

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:57 AM
The employee's choice of where they work -- and besides, who made you God to control the business owner as well as the employee?
Guess you believe in legislating morality as well.

I'm relatively new to Dr. Paul, but even I understand property rights.
I'm amazed you could have hung around here since 2007 and not be more enlightened.
My last post on the matter. Wish you well.

So, if you leave near a trash burning facility (within a couple miles say) and it occasionally blows ash into the air, wish settles on your car and destroys the finish (this happened in Maine). You're ok with that? After all, They have property rights, right? They can do whatever they want even if it affects the people around them? Or maybe the town or states says - hey, wait a minute, you can't do that. You're affecting the people around you. According to you - the answer is to make all the people move.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 07:58 AM
Governments have no rights, then why do they continuously infringe on peoples rights?

I never claimed that government's have rights. Nor do I condone 99% of what they do, but they do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizens.

otherone
03-10-2012, 08:01 AM
but they do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizens.

You're not getting it. Skiing is dangerous...government should close the ski slopes?

tod evans
03-10-2012, 08:01 AM
Um, when the patrons are the smokers and the employee is required to serve them, that isn't exactly an option now, is it?

A person has a "right" to work where they want just as a customer has a right to patronize any establishment they choose.

Where this whole theory goes awry is when any group of people try to legislate the behavior of either the business owner or his patrons.

I'm certain there are groups trying to pass legislation to outlaw tobacco.....These same groups scream when other groups try to pass legislation on their bedroom behavior or other matters of personal responsibility.

Personally I find people who spike and dye their hair offensive.........but I would never attempt to legislate against their right to use "cancer-causing" chemicals.

The audacity of people who attempt to legislate others consumption of tobacco is shameful.

otherone
03-10-2012, 08:01 AM
Or maybe the town or states says - hey, wait a minute, you can't do that. You're affecting the people around you. According to you - the answer is to make all the people move.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. Easy-peasy

tod evans
03-10-2012, 08:05 AM
So, if you leave near a trash burning facility (within a couple miles say) and it occasionally blows ash into the air, wish settles on your car and destroys the finish (this happened in Maine). You're ok with that? After all, They have property rights, right? They can do whatever they want even if it affects the people around them? Or maybe the town or states says - hey, wait a minute, you can't do that. You're affecting the people around you. According to you - the answer is to make all the people move.

Once damage has occurred you have the "right" to seek redress.

Legislating against potential damage is nonsense.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 08:06 AM
You're not getting it. Skiing is dangerous...government should close the ski slopes?

Different scenario. Does your skiing infringe on the health of others? You totally have the right to endanger your own health and well being if you so choose. You don't have the right to ski down the slope and wilfully injure other skiers, correct? So you're analogy is only half done.
You have a right to smoke if you so choose. I did for almost 30 years. I never had a problem with the concept of establishments being required to be smoke free because I KNEW that smoking was obnoxious to some people and they had a right in a public place to be free of MY habit.
If the government came in and said, we won't allow you to smoke in your home/apartment, whatever - that would be different. That IS a private place. A bar or restaurant is NOT a private place.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 08:09 AM
Once damage has occurred you have the "right" to seek redress.

Legislating against potential damage is nonsense.

There is nothing potential about it. The risks of second hand smoke are well documented. But I'll tell you what. If you allow a non-smoker who gets lung cancer to sue every establishment they frequent based on the idea that they GOT lung cancer from inhaling the proven toxic smoke of others, then I will agree with you. But, as we all know, that isn't going to happen. It is nearly impossible to prove that. OR, you could allow an asthmatic who goes into an establishment and has a horribly negative reaction to the smoke to sue, sure. I'm down with that. Why not? But that doesn't happen either, and won't. The fact is, second hand smoke is dangerous. There is no such thing as a "non smoking area" because smoke doesn't respect boundaries and an establishment that caters to the "public" is NOT a "private" place.

otherone
03-10-2012, 08:11 AM
A bar or restaurant is NOT a private place.

No one FORCES you to go skiing. No one FORCES you to enter ANY establishment. I find strip clubs to be offensive.....I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ONE. Drunks are obnoxious..I don't have to go to a bar. I can't stand loud techno music....I don't go to clubs.....see the pattern?

Sematary
03-10-2012, 08:20 AM
No one FORCES you to go skiing. No one FORCES you to enter ANY establishment. I find strip clubs to be offensive.....I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ONE. Drunks are obnoxious..I don't have to go to a bar. I can't stand loud techno music....I don't go to clubs.....see the pattern?

I see a problem with your analogy. How would you feel if EVERY bar or restaurant had strippers and techno music. How would you feel then? See the pattern?

tod evans
03-10-2012, 08:22 AM
A bar or restaurant is NOT a private place.

A bar or restaurant IS the private property of the owner though, isn't legislating "smoking" similar to legislating the music played or menu served?

How about legislating the waitresses dress code?


I vote for NO more legislation.

otherone
03-10-2012, 08:25 AM
I see a problem with your analogy. How would you feel if EVERY bar or restaurant had strippers and techno music. How would you feel then? See the pattern?

C'mon...REALLY? In a free market, business stays in business by offering goods and services that are demanded by customers.

donnay
03-10-2012, 08:33 AM
I never claimed that government's have rights. Nor do I condone 99% of what they do, but they do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizens.

Then I guess you are all for the Nanny state eh?

Government's duty is to protect our rights not infringe upon them. There are three branches of government for a reason.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 08:35 AM
A bar or restaurant IS the private property of the owner though, isn't legislating "smoking" similar to legislating the music played or menu served?

How about legislating the waitresses dress code?


I vote for NO more legislation.

A bar or restaurant is not "private" if it is open to the public. At that point the establishment owner made a choice. They can remain private and limit their clientele or they could go public and open their establishment to everyone. That was a choice that they made.
And, like the other guy, your analogy about the music is horrible. It is based on the assumption that different establishments have different rules. But in reality, in states where smoking is allowed in public venues, ALL establishments allow smoking because they don't want to drive away their smoking customers, regardless of the impact that smoking has on the rights of non-smokers. Your analogy assumes there is another option. If you allow topless waitresses and play rock music all day or techno and I don't like that, then I can go somewhere else. In the case of smoking, there is no other option and that is where the analogy goes awry.
What we've discovered in the Northeast (because we had this discussion already) is that ALL establishments who cater to the public are on an equal footing now and no one has lost any business. The smokers don't really give a shit if they have to go outside to smoke. Nor do they mind waiting till their meal is done and they have exited the establishment.

All the people here who are arguing against this type of legislation are basing it on "property rights" while completely ignoring the rights of the majority of the population. If you want a "private" establishment, then feel free to create one. It works well in Massachusetts. The VFW and other "private" establishments are free to allow smoking if they so choose, and they do. But, as soon as they cater to the general public, they have to play by different rules - and that is a choice that they make.

Warrior_of_Freedom
03-10-2012, 08:36 AM
My only problem with smoking is when people smoke right in front of an entrance. I.E. when I used to go to college, everyone who smoked would smoke right to the entrance of the main buildings, which pissed me off because I couldn't walk to class without getting smoke in my face. Forcing me to smoke with them =/= freedom.

donnay
03-10-2012, 08:36 AM
I see a problem with your analogy. How would you feel if EVERY bar or restaurant had strippers and techno music. How would you feel then? See the pattern?

Feelings are not rights.

I wouldn't patronize the places, and if I really wanted to I would start my own cigar bar with big band music. In a truly free market I would have this right, but we do not have a truly free market.

donnay
03-10-2012, 08:39 AM
My only problem with smoking is when people smoke right in front of an entrance. I.E. when I used to go to college, everyone who smoked would smoke right to the entrance of the main buildings, which pissed me off because I couldn't walk to class without getting smoke in my face. Forcing me to smoke with them =/= freedom.

That's because of the regulations that relegated those smokers to the designated areas. Don't blame the smokers, blame those who made up those rules!

Sematary
03-10-2012, 08:39 AM
Then I guess you are all for the Nanny state eh?

Government's duty is to protect our rights not infringe upon them. There are three branches of government for a reason.

Look, I'm all for intelligent discussion and disagreement on issues but going straight to a fallacious argument like the Non Sequitur you just displayed here does not help to move the discussion further. It only serves to show that you don't want to have an intelligent discussion. I have presented my case clearly and without resorting to attacks on other posters. Your implication that I would like a nanny state because I believe that non smokers have rights is duly noted and equally unappreciated.

tod evans
03-10-2012, 08:44 AM
So if we follow this logic, instead of smokers infringing on the "rights" of non-smokers we should permit non-smokers to infringe on the "rights" of smokers.

And while doing this we'll disregard the property owners "rights" to determine if he wants or doesn't want either type of clientele.

Anytime legislation is passed "for the good" of one group another groups "rights" are infringed upon.

Next argument will be the ol' fail-safe; "It's for the children".





A bar or restaurant is not "private" if it is open to the public. At that point the establishment owner made a choice. They can remain private and limit their clientele or they could go public and open their establishment to everyone. That was a choice that they made.
And, like the other guy, your analogy about the music is horrible. It is based on the assumption that different establishments have different rules. But in reality, in states where smoking is allowed in public venues, ALL establishments allow smoking because they don't want to drive away their smoking customers, regardless of the impact that smoking has on the rights of non-smokers. Your analogy assumes there is another option. If you allow topless waitresses and play rock music all day or techno and I don't like that, then I can go somewhere else. In the case of smoking, there is no other option and that is where the analogy goes awry.
What we've discovered in the Northeast (because we had this discussion already) is that ALL establishments who cater to the public are on an equal footing now and no one has lost any business. The smokers don't really give a shit if they have to go outside to smoke. Nor do they mind waiting till their meal is done and they have exited the establishment.

All the people here who are arguing against this type of legislation are basing it on "property rights" while completely ignoring the rights of the majority of the population. If you want a "private" establishment, then feel free to create one. It works well in Massachusetts. The VFW and other "private" establishments are free to allow smoking if they so choose, and they do. But, as soon as they cater to the general public, they have to play by different rules - and that is a choice that they make.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 08:45 AM
Feelings are not rights.

I wouldn't patronize the places, and if I really wanted to I would start my own cigar bar with big band music. In a truly free market I would have this right, but we do not have a truly free market.

I'm calling you out on this one. You would not be able to patronize ANY place because they all permit the same behavior that would prevent your from frequenting their establishments. Your argument amounts to - people who are offended by second hand smoke can suck it because I don't care about THEIR RIGHTS - only my own. YOU may be able to get the funds together to open your own cigar bar but that isn't exactly a realistic option for the majority of people - say about 99.999999999% of them.

So, now, being one of those, you are essentially unable to go out and eat or drink at a bar. You have asthma, or some other lung disease, or you are simply highly offended by the smell of second hand smoke. Your hosed. You can't do anything about it. You can't take your kids out to eat. You can't go to the bar with your friends. So where are YOUR rights at that point?

This isn't real difficult. If you don't want to live by rules that the legislature sets for the GENERAL PUBLIC, then DON'T OPEN YOUR DOORS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 08:46 AM
So if we follow this logic, instead of smokers infringing on the "rights" of non-smokers we should permit non-smokers to infringe on the "rights" of smokers.

And while doing this we'll disregard the property owners "rights" to determine if he wants or doesn't want either type of clientele.

Anytime legislation is passed "for the good" of one group another groups "rights" are infringed upon.

Next argument will be the ol' fail-safe; "It's for the children".

No one is infringing on the rights of smokers to smoke. They are more than free to do so. There is only the requisite that it not be done in a public venue such as a restaurant. You also have freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to endanger the public by yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

tod evans
03-10-2012, 08:48 AM
All the people here who are arguing against this type of legislation .

Yesterday I spouted off with my opinion of "legislation" here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?366134-Legislation-the-enemy-of-liberty!).

Spend two minutes.

donnay
03-10-2012, 08:49 AM
Look, I'm all for intelligent discussion and disagreement on issues but going straight to a fallacious argument like the Non Sequitur you just displayed here does not help to move the discussion further. It only serves to show that you don't want to have an intelligent discussion. I have presented my case clearly and without resorting to attacks on other posters. Your implication that I would like a nanny state because I believe that non smokers have rights is duly noted and equally unappreciated.

You see you haven't. You keep on saying that someone who opens a business, doesn't have private property rights--you are wrong. The way business is to work in a free market (of which we do not have) is, you open up a business, it is your private property, you have a right as a private business owner to allow smokers or not. Not government.

Trying to make the point that in a truly free market, the people would be the regulators, not government.

I am more concerned about people having the flu and sneezing and coughing on me--because the flu does kill people. However, I do not seek government to quarantine these people. I take on the responsibility of eating well and keeping my immune system good. It's all about personal responsibility and private property rights!

otherone
03-10-2012, 08:52 AM
But in reality, in states where smoking is allowed in public venues, ALL establishments allow smoking because they don't want to drive away their smoking customers.// In the case of smoking, there is no other option and that is where the analogy goes awry. //What we've discovered in the Northeast is that ALL establishments who cater to the public are on an equal footing now and no one has lost any business. The smokers don't really give a shit if they have to go outside to smoke. Nor do they mind waiting till their meal is done and they have exited the establishment.

You're pretty much wrong on the above accounts. In NJ, many businesses opted to become non-smoking long before the ban, because consumers demanded it. As a former smoker, I can tell you straight up that the first thing I would look for when sitting in a restaurant or at a bar was an ashtray. No tray meant no smoking.

donnay
03-10-2012, 08:54 AM
No one is infringing on the rights of smokers to smoke. They are more than free to do so. There is only the requisite that it not be done in a public venue such as a restaurant. You also have freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to endanger the public by yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I encourage you to take the time to watch all of these!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s

Sematary
03-10-2012, 08:56 AM
You see you haven't. You keep on saying that someone who opens a business, doesn't have private property rights--you are wrong. The way business is to work in a free market (of which we do not have) is, you open up a business, it is your private property, you have a right as a private business owner to allow smokers or not. Not government.

Trying to make the point that in a truly free market, the people would be the regulators, not government.

I am more concerned about people having the flu and sneezing and coughing on me--because the flu does kill people. However, I do not seek government to quarantine these people. I take on the responsibility of eating well and keeping my immune system good. It's all about personal responsibility and private property rights!

Where are your property rights lost? If you wish to cater allow smoking in your establishment then you have the option of making your establishment private. Then, the people who choose to join your private establishment are aware that smoking is allowed and probably have become a member of your establishment BECAUSE you allow smoking. NOW you have true choice. People who don't smoke and don't want to be around it have an actual choice to frequent some other establishment other than yours. In the current situation, those people don't have that option, which means the free market is NOT working because there are not establishments that cater to non smokers. In Massachusetts, Ct., etc... we have both. I stay out of places that allow smoking (private clubs - such as the VFW) and go to places where smoking is not permitted. I have a choice. The owner of those establishments ALSO have a choice - to either open their doors to everyone or to open their doors to people select clientele. That is true free market option for the patrons. Before the laws were changed, those options weren't available.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 09:01 AM
I encourage you to take the time to watch all of these!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s

They don't impact this discussion. I've seen them. The source of the problem here is what constitutes choice and when does a business owner DECIDE to make his establishment public or private. I guarantee you, if I drove into a state right now that doesn't have laws limiting where people can smoke, that I would be unable to find a restaurant that would fulfill my desire to be in a non smoking atmosphere. There is no choice there. I have to eat. But if I go into an establishment with smokers then I am going to have a severe asthma attack. What an option.
I understand the counter arguments, I simply believe they are wrong.

Sematary
03-10-2012, 09:08 AM
You're pretty much wrong on the above accounts. In NJ, many businesses opted to become non-smoking long before the ban, because consumers demanded it. As a former smoker, I can tell you straight up that the first thing I would look for when sitting in a restaurant or at a bar was an ashtray. No tray meant no smoking.

I don't live in NJ and I can guarantee you, there were no such establishments here. Now I have options. Before, I did not. My RIGHT to a meal without choking on the second hand smoke of others has been guaranteed. Again, and I reiterate - your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

There are two things here.

1. Property owners have the RIGHT to remain private and NOT open their doors to the public.
2. Smokers have rights but those rights END when they infringe on the rights of non smokers.

I'll use another analogy. I own a couple of apartment buildings. My tenants have the right to play loud music or do whatever they wish as long as it is legal. But, when that behavior infringes on the rights of other tenants in the building to peaceful enjoyment of THEIR apartment then that right ends.
This is EXACTLY the same. People have the right to smoke. I would never deny that. But non smokers have the right to enjoyment of meals or drinks in an environment free from deadly, noxious fumes.

This same exact discussion comes up anytime a state considers this legislation. Then it passes and NOBODY cares any more because the impact is NOT what people believed it would be. Smokers could give shit and non smokers are happy and the owners of restaurants and bars are happy because it doesn't cost them anything - it actually improves their business. So, essentially, it's much ado about nothing.

otherone
03-10-2012, 09:17 AM
My RIGHT to a meal without choking on the second hand smoke of others has been guaranteed. Again, and I reiterate - your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.


lol. The guy on the park bench next to yours is smoking...so you can't enjoy your ham sandwich. You move. If a bunch of kids start hanging out swearing loudly next to you, you move. If some screaming infant is sitting next to you, you move. Your entire assumption, that all business would be smoking establishments if allowed, is FALSE.