Jump to content

Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Smoking Police Come Home To Roost

Smoking Bans Free Enterprise

  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#81 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:34 AM

Jid, on Jun 4 2003, 09:19 AM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 4 2003, 10:08 AM, said:


Correct.  There is no right to smoke.

There is also no right "not" to be exposed to smoke.

There IS however a right to run one's own business. To me that's where the slippery slope starts.
^ But there *is* a right to not have your health tampered with by other people, deliberately or not.

See where I find it complicated? ;)
Jid if that were true, alcohol, aspirin, sodas, oreos, MacDonalds, automobiles and probably a whole sh*t load of other things would be banned.

There actually *is* no such blanket right.
Posted Image

#82 G1223


    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:47 AM

Well there are a number of folks who want to do just that. They like being able to control other people's lives. They do not seek a middle ground where while not perfect beats what was being faced.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#83 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:53 AM

G1223, on Jun 4 2003, 09:51 AM, said:

Well there are a number of folks who want to do just that. They like being able to control other people's lives. They do not seek a middle ground where while not perfect beats what was being faced.

You nailed it.

I see this smoke stuff as yet another case of government interjection where perhaps none is necessary.  Rather than target businesses, if they REALLY think smoking is THAT lethal why not target the people who MAKE the cigarettes?  Instead they are setting precedents for all kinds of government nose poking.  It's all very big brotherish if you ask me.
Posted Image

#84 Jid


    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 04:06 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 4 2003, 10:38 AM, said:

Jid if that were true, alcohol, aspirin, sodas, oreos, MacDonalds, automobiles and probably a whole sh*t load of other things would be banned.

There actually *is* no such blanket right.
The only part of those examples that I really follow is the automobiles one.  I fail to see how your choice to drink alcohol or sodas (or mix ;) ), take aspirin, or eat oreos and McDonalds would have any effect on me, or vice versa.  Self poisoning isn't what's on the table here, I think.

I *do* have the right, in a philsophical sense at the very least, to be free from harm at the hands of other people.

If you came into my house and started trying to force aspirin down my throat, it'd be my right to tell you to bugger off.

In the case of automobiles and other vehicles that require engines or power to run, it'd be pretty damn hypocritical of me to demand cessation of their use, since I use them, almost daily.  If you started piping exhaust fumes into my house, on the other hand, I'd, again, have the right to tell you where to go.

On the other hand, I have no problems if you choose to smoke, provided it's not near me, or at the very least for short durations.

In a place like a restaurant, smoke has a tendency to linger (and longer than you might think, says the HVAC student ;) ).  

It is really no more right for the smoker to be allowed to smoke in a restaurant than it is for me to demand they not be allowed to in any enclosed public space.  (They have just as much a right to non interference as I after all) - but the dilemma is that the very act of allowing them *their* non interference causes interference for *me*, and most non smokers.  Being in a family of mostly asthmatics (the one genetic lottery I somehow managed to win) means that even a single person puffing even several feet away, can be extremely offputting and dampening to what are normally celebratory events.  (We rarely eat out otherwise)

All because they don't want to take 5 minutes to step outside?  (Stepping outside, I'd say, is far more acceptable, imho.  I'd much rather walk past a smoker who's smoke is diluting into the nice large atmosphere than be trapped in a room filled with the byproduct fumes of their favourite vice.)

Sure, I sound selfish.  Both sides of this debate truly are selfish motives.  I say go for what the majority says it wants.  And if the government asks it's constituents if they want smoke free areas, well, isn't it the governments duty to do so?

Edited by Jid, 05 June 2003 - 04:07 AM.

cervisiam tene rem specta

#85 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 04:16 AM

And what about the fumes from every chimney or fire place?

Or factory.

The world around us is filled with toxic crap.  That is not a valid reason for singling out cigarettes because smoking is at the moment un cool.

And if a business is going to be told they can't allow people to smoke, why are other businesses allowed to make cigarettes available for consumption?  After all at *some* point, those cigarettes will be smoked, and in most of the instances it will be where someone else gets exposed to the smoke.  

As for the "majority rules" argument, well, um, I think it's a cop out.  The majority in California also voted to make only straight marriages legal.  They've done lots of things I don't agree with.  Just because the majority votes for something does not automatically make it okay.
Posted Image

#86 Jid


    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 04:22 AM

^Well, to be picky, the smoke from fireplaces and factories are mostly vented directly into the atmosphere and diluted to safe levels.

I'm fortunate enough to live in a city that doesn't have a smog problem, but that's certainly one issue where I can agree that there's something crappy about the air itself.

In the case of cigarettes in a smaller enclosed space though - it's not hard to get concentrations to uncomfortably high levels with very little effort.  I think that's the important part.

As for the "majority rule" being a cop out.  I won't argue about it on any moral or ethical ground.  It *is* a cop out.  Unfortunately, just because we find something morally repugnant (i.e. straight only marriages) that the majority obviously does not, doesn't nullify the government's responsibility to bow to the will of the people it governs.

Or to quote Oscar Wilde: "Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ;)

I don't like many "majority" things either.  But until I can drum up my own majority to change things, it's what I'm stuck with.

Edited by Jid, 05 June 2003 - 04:23 AM.

cervisiam tene rem specta

#87 Godeskian


    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:18 AM

I can only speak for myself, but fireplaces don't give me attacks, nor does the smoke from factories.

Cigarettes, and pipes do

Defy Gravity!

The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.

#88 AnneZo

  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 08:31 AM

Mary Rose, on Jun 2 2003, 11:56 PM, said:

But hey, shouldn't it be up to the indivdual business owner whether they go smoke free or not?  Supposedly we are still a free country.  I wonder how long that will last? :sarcasm:
I think individual businesses should be able to decide if they'll be smoking or anti-smoking.

People who are against smoking can just patronize a different restaurant or grocery store or whatever, okay?* (Public and government buildings should be non-smoking, though. You can't just choose to go to a different courthouse or something, after all.  :) )

I'd patronize the non-smoking businesses 99.99% of the time.* I think smoking indoors in an enclosed area is totally disgusting. It smells and it gets into my eyes and makes my contact lenses blurry.

(* Yes, I smoke.)

#89 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 08:33 AM

And the fateful day when AnneZo and I would 100% agree on something has come.... :eek:
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#90 AnneZo

  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 08:37 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 4 2003, 09:37 PM, said:

And the fateful day when AnneZo and I would 100% agree on something has come.... :eek:





    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 10:34 AM


Rov: Agreed. But there has to be a higher standard than the convenience of non-smokers.

How about say not exposing large amounts of the population to a harmful toxin that will have a chronic effect on their health with a strong potential for eventual death.  I worked in an Environmental Health and Safety Office from that I could tell you a lot of things are covered under government restrictions that are a lot less likely to kill you than cigarette smoke.  


Rov: Now, you can't walk past a bar without inhaling the smoke of all the people who went outside to light up. Before, to get those lovely fumes, you had to choose to go inside the bar. Now, you have to plan routes *around* it. Thanks New York.

Again drawing back on my experience there is an easy way to solve this problem. You mandate that people can’t smoke within a certain distance from exits or entrances to the building.  That was actually quite effective at keeping smokers away from entrances when used in conjunction with fines.  Secondly you have a MUCH larger volume of air outside to disperse that smoke than inside a building where it will be concentrated inside the building.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#92 Mary Rose

Mary Rose

    Charlie's Asthmatic Angel

  • Moderator
  • 22,372 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 02:27 PM

With the number of businessness that went smoke free by choice, I don't think it'd be hard to find a totally smoke free enviorment, if that's what you want.

However, shouldn't smokers have places where they can congregate and get together? I don't think  that's too much to ask.
Mary Rose, Official Missionary for the Church of Beka angst.  Please join us for worship at the EI fanfic board.  Jill-- on what my name badge should say.
Proud Andromeda and Forever Knight fanfic writer
    Posted Image           Posted Image           Posted Image
Proud parent of thriving Beka and Tracy muses
Posted Image

#93 sierraleone


    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,225 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 09:26 AM

I guess I should have known about this, but I'm horrible at paying attention to the news:


This is just weird.
Sure, the government foots the bill, as they fund (with our tax money) Health Care. But why only Tabacco?
Lets sue alcoholic beverage producers for the costs of problems related to drinking alcohol.
Lets sue companies that sell unhealthy food (junk food full of sugar or fat or both) for the costs of all the related problems to that....
Lets sue pool makers for the costs of treating drowning victims.
Lets sue car makers for the cost of treating car accidents victims (though that'd overlap some with the alcohol cases  :wacko: )
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#94 Duke Jr

Duke Jr
  • Islander
  • 7,027 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 10:24 PM

I am a non-smoker. I would perfer to eat in a non-smoking resturant. This is because it smells better when eating, not because of any physical problems or allergys. I do have problems with perfumes. Certain cologns (not all) have a very negative effect on my ability to breath. It is not my right to force people not to were perfume because of this problem.

     I have been in a Tobacolist shop. Except for the smoke, it was avery nice store. The workers were very nice. The customers were very pleasant as well. The owners of the store had set up several armchaira and couches for their clients. The owners got to sell the customers cigaretts and cigars (This is how they made their money). The customers got a place they could smoke and relax in without being bothered by non-smokers.

     Now a law gets passed forbing smoking in public places. It's a store, therfore it's a public place. Now the smokers can't smoke there, because a non-smoker may excersize thir right to come in and look around the place in a smokefree envirment. The smokers get told to go and stand ouside in the rain or sleet, because nonsmokers don't want them contaminating the shop with smoke.

     I realize the police are not going to target Tabacco stores. However, all it takes is one person angry at the owners, or one person trying to force someone not to smoke. One call to the police, and (because it's a now a law) the police will have to stop anyone from smoking in a public place where the only ciustomers are smokers.

     I am in favor of handicap assecabilty laws. Anyone should have access to public places. Non-smokers have acces to public areas. They are also able to turn and walk out of any resturant or store that a moker is in. Enough non-smokers leave, the these places will change to non-smoking area so the owners will keep them as customers. I don't think making a law saying non-smokers have rights that smokers don't is the way to go.
Posted Image Come see the   Beka Writer's Community .  Readers and Writers welcome!!!  Posted Image

#95 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 10:29 PM


Can I get a woot woot?

Well said.
Posted Image

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Smoking, Bans, Free Enterprise

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users