A few days ago I got my letter asking to renew membership in the state GOP. I refused. Based solely on the support given for the ban on smoking that infringes on private businesses. My own fucking party in this state wants to dictate how private individuals can run their businesses in regards to a legal product they greedily collect taxes on. After a few days of mulling it over, I sent off the following to party HQ.
Even the party I most closely identify with wants to join the throng in treating me as a second-class citizen. I realize that even being considered a red state by most, the GOP here is little more than slightly conservative Democrats.
There is only one county near me that has a smoking ban. In the last election, almost 70% of them voted for Bush. This is not a Democrats vs. Republicans issue, it’s smokers vs. (some very vocal) non-smokers.
I’m a liberal Democrat and ex-smoker, and I’m not your fucking enemy. I think these bans are stupid.
You may continue to vote for the party that stomps on gay rights at your leisure, as they’re not turning into conservative Democrats.
Hey dipshit. Ever check political leanings in Oregon? And before you preach about the rights of one group over another, keep in mind that one group (gays) are trying to get new rights instituted. Another (smokers) are seeing rights eroded left and right.
You want to equate the two? Have at it. Mind if I spend a few nanoseconds on something that directly affects me?
What do the political leanings of Oregon have to do with anything? Spacey fucker.
I didn’t preach about one group’s rights over the rights of another. Remember, I’m the guy who wants both smokers and gays to have rights. Illiterate fucker.
And I said this was a bad thing in my opinion, remember? “La-la-la, I can’t hear you” fucker.
I didn’t equate the two. Let me repeat it for you. You insinuated that the Democrats are the ones behind most smoking bans. I told you it was some non-smokers, comprised of Republcans and Democrats alike, who were pushing for the bans. You ignored that. Mistaken fucker.
Shit, that attitude is exactly why the bans are passing. There are more non-smokers than smokers, so if most of them don’t give a shit about things that directly affect others, such as smokers, you get the bans. Selfish fucker being fucked by selfish fuckers.
Over here, the discussion wasn’t about whether or not the patrons, who do indeed usually have a choice, should be protected by such a ban, but whether the employees should be so protected, as for many employees, the choice isn’t always to work in a smoking or non-smoking bar, but whether to work in a smoking bar or not to work at all and end up living in the streets. After huge protests from the restaurant and café businesses, the bill did not pass, but it is not off the table. It’s an interesting issue, not easy.
Arwin, while I actually do understand the issue that employees face in smoking environments, and actually sympathize with them, I really don’t buy that that is the reason this stuff is passing everywhere. Most of the people who support the ban could likely give a flying fuck about the employees of these places (unless they are one of the said employees), but just want to not have anyone smoking where they might be.
I even understand where the non-smokers are coming from, but still don’t support the bans.
A flat smoking ban in ANY place of business that will have members of the public either working or visiting would be (and is) absolutely fantastic and is most certainly long overdue in all civilised countries.
How you can somehow think you have some sort of moral highground for withdrawing support for a party that supports the idea of letting people find employment in businesses that do not attempt to slowly murder them is quite beyond me.
And this is the reactionary idiocy those of us more committed to freedom are up against. Terrazzo not only gets to control his lungs, not only doubtless tries to control the lungs of anyone nearby, but also attempts to enshrine legislation taking away people’s rights to enjoy a cigarette with their after dinner coffee. Very nice - you don’t approve of a lifestyle choice, so you get to ban it? You think you’re on the moral highground here for taking away people’s rights? Because you can’t possibly claim that you’re hurting for places to go that don’t allow smoking. Businesses that allow it include certain restaurants, and bars. To avoid cigarette smoke - if you simply can’t stand it - just means going outside, or to a restaurant that doesn’t permit it, or to a grocery store, or a mall, or a public building, or a café, or a theater, or a movie theater, or a museum, or a store, or, well, anywhere else. It’s that vital that you manage to remove the rights of smokers to smoke in the very few public places left where it’s permitted? Are all nonsmokers such reactionary, controlling assholes?
BTW, duffer, this also should function as a lesson in how willing the GOP is to throw away its vaunted commitment to free markets. There’s plenty of people perfectly willing to throw out a businessperson’s right to run their business as they see fit.
So smoking in already banned in all workplaces where you live then? Good show, just the way it should be.
If it isn’t, then you are not free from the act of being slowly killed by others chosen lifestyle habits whilst you perform your job. Employers have a duty of care to protect employees from harm in their place of work – to allow smoking to occur in the presence of paid staff can be seen as extremely negligent. People have the right to be safe in their chosen workplace – and the employer must take all available precautions to ensure that workers remain safe. You should not, ever, have to put up with being slowly killed in your chosen place of work. Not by anyone.
Why do those who appose such bans put precedence on the right to make profit over the right to life?
What about freedom to health or life for all employers? You are free to smoke at home, or in designated places in (outside) your place of work, but not IN a place of work where other people (or customers) will be affected by your smoke.
Damn right - if I am eating close-by you should not be smoking near me in a restaurant / bar / inside public place. If you wish to smoke, then take it outside.
I don’t want to ban it at all – I want it moved to a designated location so it does not inconvenience or harm me whilst I continue with my chosen profession or with my social choices.
I never claimed such a thing – but I do believe the right to life and health totally supersedes your ‘right’ to smoke indoors after eating in a restaurant, when you can easily go outside to do so, if you desire.
Why should I have to “stand it”, to “put up with it”, to “just get along” with others who are intent on doing me physical harm due to their own selfish choices? All I’m asking for it the choice to visit a place of business (this includes any place I desire that offers a service – the business has no right to discriminate against me as a customer) without being attacked or harmed by others.
BTW: Slowly killing other citizens due to your lifestyle choice is now a ‘right’? Can you show me from where you support that idea from?
You seem to be a very angry, judgemental young man. What with your smoking and the stress of all your anger you really should watch your blood pressure. That’s a fragile thing, your heart, you know.
TDN:
Are you suggesting that tobacco smoke is not harmful, or that passive smoking is not at all dangerous or not responsible for any deaths?
This is a statistical study containing very little hard evidence. Highly speculative. Essentially, the people involved are guessing that passive smoking caused these deaths.
a) There is some question about the validity of the studies that indicate that second-hand smoke is harmful, or to the degree of harmfulness. I’d like to clear the air, so to speak.
b) Your phrase “slowly killing us” is melodramatic. I’ve tried killing my enemies with second hand smoke. Trust me, it’s not reliable. A gun or knife would be a much better tool.
I would just like to add my voice here: I am a non-smoker, and I do not support these smoking bans. They are nothing but a thinly-disguised ‘temperance’ movement for cigarettes.
Also, regarding the employee-argument: can you seriously claim that there are so many ‘smoking-allowed’ places that the choice is going to be working in a smoky environment or having no job at all? It seems to me that in the States and here in the UK non-smoking establishments outnumber smoking ones. How about allowing there to be a designated (indoors, especially in a cold place like North Dakota) smoking room? Why is that harmful?
There are plenty of studies that say ‘passive smoking’ is dangerous, and plenty that do not. The jury is still out; but most ‘passive smoking’ is not continuous or impossible to avoid, especially in most working environments.