I'm done with my state's GOP.

The BBQ Pit
61

I am a smoker, I hate it. I have no problem with banning smoking in public. I do not do it. I refuse to impose my decision to smoke on others. I will not smoke around others. Period. I am pretty much limited to smoking in my car and my backyard.

I do not know whether the hype about second hand smoke is realistic or not but I refuse to subject others to a risk they do not choose to accept.

Smoking is most definately a right. If it was it would add a new twist to the medical MJ debate. While I think people should be free to light up if they want, I do not think they should expose others to it.

62

But you wouldn’t think about telling, say, the owner of a bar how to run their business, would you?

63

No. I would not. But I have no problem with the people of a state passing a law that prohibits smoking in public places. Personally I think it is better to let the market sort it out. Let the owners decide if they permit smoking or not. If people really do not like smoke then they will choose not to patronize establishments that permit it.

64

Yeah, I suppose it is, but the original documents P&T display contain statements contradicting the magnitude of the illnesses caused by secondhand smoke claimed by many anti-smokers. Many of these documents are from the very studies cited by the anti-smokers in support of their claims. So, if the best evidence the anti-smokers can offer us is, at best, equivocal, and at worst, contradictory, then I think it is pretty safe to assume P&T have got it right. Plus, P&T (or Penn anyway; Teller, of course has nothing to say) state at the beginning of the segment that they hate tobacco smoke and enjoy smoke-free environments. I have no reason to doubt their veracity.

65

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument, but this…

…and this…

…seem contradictory to me. If we’re going to let the market sort it out, why do we need any kind of law passed about it?

66

It’s been a while since I’ve seen that episode, but I seem to remember something about their data collection methods. The researchers asked subjects if they had any number of health problems, then asked them if they have ever–even once–been exposed second hand smoke. An affirmative on both was interpreted as causality.

Not having looked at the study myself, I couldn’t say.

Bullsh!t! He has spoken. To me. I’ll never forget the kind words he so eloquently said to me. He said, “That’ll be fifteen dollars.” I was touched.

67

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about smokers. If the owner of any property decides to allow or disallow smoking, I’m okay with that. And since someone owns everything, that could mean that smokers have no place to smoke. And I’m okay with that.

If a law passes to prevent smoking on a city-owned sidewalk or in a city-owned park, that’s fine by me. I am not for laws that force a private business to ban smoking, though.

68

[QUOTE=Excalibre]
And all we’re saying is that a business owner has the right to run a business the way they like.

Well, yes and no. A bar owner (at least in CA) who serves alcohol to someone who then goes out and has a MVA or injures someone in a fight, etc., is considered liable to some extent. So given the chance that secondhand smoke is detrimental, I could see a very strong argument for controlling/banning it.

Would tobacco users be willing to use chewing tobacco to feed their addiction in public places? As a nonsmoker, I’d have no problem with that - of course, you’d have to provide your own spitoon :wink: .

I googled ‘secondhand smoke’, and these are a few of the top sites I got in return:
http://www.yourlunghealth.org/staying_healthy/health_tips/secondhand_smoke.cfm

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://www.entnet.org/healthinfo/tobacco/secondhand_smoke.cfm

http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html#smoke

I didn’t read carefully, but 3 of these 4 (all backed by ‘health’ type organizations) decry secondhand smoke as detrimental. The 4th site appears to be a private individual bemoaning governmental intervention in the rights of smokers.

The thing is, there are laws governing public sex and drunkenness - not that the actual practice is bad or harmful, but that it shouldn’t be indulged in public. The same should apply for smoking. The jury may still be out, but if the behavior can injure others, it should be controlled.

69

I said I do not have a problem with the people of the state passing such a law, not that I think they should, just that if they did I would accept it as whithin their power to do it.

I am not one of those cooky libertarians, I feel that IN MY OPINION the market should be left to sort it out. I do not think that the market is the be all and end all just that in this instance it is an acceptable (to me) method of deciding the issue.

70

And I’m sick of self-righteous pricks who whine about their fucking “rights” as though they actually had any in this country. You and I are subject to the laws of the land and all their restrictions, along with the vagaries of the vocal minority who make them. The load of crap is between your fucking ears.

71

Please re-read what you quoted; it was an “if…then” statement. What forces people into bar-staff jobs? Are you kidding? One of many answers would be ‘to pay the rent’, or possibly ‘to feed my kids’. If what you do best is take drink orders, then probably a job in a bar is where you will end up. Unskilled workers don’t always have wide choices, is all I’m saying here.

72

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

73

Pssst, come down south to Pierce County. There are good restaurants here and they are non-smoking too. There are tons of non-smoking places. We also have the on-again, off-again ban on smoking in public places here.

tdn, believe it or not, Seattle is IN Washington, but Seattle is NOT the only city or town in Washington. I’m not trying to be snarky, I just can’t believe how many people seem to assume that anything to do with Washington is all Seattle, all the time. Sorry for the slight hijack…

Finally, I am a smoker and have a real problem with government imposed bans on smoking. The government is not my mama or daddy. If private businesses decide to impose smoking bans, that’s fine. FWIW, I generally do not smoke inside restaurants. I smoke outside, after dinner. Frankly, I do not like clouds of smoke either.

74

Color me confused. Did I mention Seattle? Were you perhaps confusing me with a different poster?

75

Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth
They simply don’t seem to exist except in never-never land.

Originally posted by tdn
Huh. Boston is never-never land, apparently. I can’t even remember the last time I was able to light up in a restaurant. I’d bet it’s been at leat 15 years.

If it’s so very different in Washington, then I’m right with you on bans, or at least a good number of restaurants voluntarily going smoke free. But I have a hard time believing that it’s so very different in Washington.

You’re right you didn’t specifically mention Seattle; I looked at the location of amarinth (Emerald City) and knew she/he? lived in Seattle. I apologize for assuming you knew he/she was speaking of Seattle. You what happens when one ASS-umes and I just proved it. :smack: :wink: So, I apologize.

76

No problem. Besides, we all know that the only city in Washigton is Spokane.

77

Now for me, this is an excellent thread. We now see, in the full light of day, the ignorance and deliberate twisting of fact that the “anti’s” will stoop to. I want to take issue with one thing specifically. Chefguy is of the opinion that (unless I grossly “misunderestimated” him) only those things specifically listed in the Constitution are allowed, and anything else can be taken away on a whim or the stroke of a pen. It just ain’t so. If anything, the Constitution is meant to be a limit on government power.

It is amazing how many people seem to think that the government exists to turn their prejudices into laws. - Thomas Sowell

First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure. - Mark Twain

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). -Ayn Rand

No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -Judge Gideon J. Tucker

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. – Barry Goldwater

“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” – U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds

“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth… and what no just government should refuse.” – Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to James Madison, Paris, Dec. 20, 1787

“I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away.” – Thomas Jefferson to Uriah Forrest, 1787. Papers, 12:477.

“If you don’t have the right to do something wrong [to yourself], you don’t have any rights at all.” – Gene Burns at Faneuil Hall, Boston, 9/29/1996

“Man is not free unless government is limited.” – Ronald Reagan: Farewell Speech, 1988

**[The purpose of the Constitution is to] “keep the government off the backs of people.” – Justice William O. Douglas **

“…every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Ammendment.” – Justice Louis Brandeis (Olmstead v. US)

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. - Voltaire

78

No, I am not fucking kidding. The reasons you listed are what forces people to work, not to work in a bloody bar. Who the fuck is so uselessly specialised that they can only get a job in a fucking bar? Who is so completely tied in to serving alcohol that their only choice is to die of second-hand smoke or see their kids die? No-one, that’s who. It’s a fucking ludicrous position that there is some class of oppressed innate bar workers in this (or any) country who a) didn’t know that there would be smoke involved when they started bar work and b) are so insanely stupid that they can’t get out of it if they don’t like the smoke. I’m fully aware that I was quoting an “if … then” statement - it was the entire point of my argument that the “if” bit was bloody ludicrous, rendering the “then” bit moot.

If what you do “best” is take drink orders, then there’s a veritable fuckload* of other jobs you can do equally well. Come on - who the fuck is so specialised that they can only hear “two beers”, and not “I’ll have three mochaccinos and a wankbiscuit, please,” or “does this computer come with a keyboard”? No-one, that’s who. This is real bloody life, not Tom Cruise in Cocktail. And how exactly did this person end up with their main talent being taking drink orders? Did they take extra beer classes at high school? Double vodka after hours, with a major in tonic? No, they got out of high school and though “hey, I’ll work in a bar!” Now if, at that point, they were too goddamn thick to realise that this might entail working around the sort of people who actually go to bars, i.e. drinkers and smokers, then frankly they can fuck off, because I’m buggered if I’m basing an entire legal system around people too thick to tie up their own shoelaces without a diagram. Especially since there is absolutely no impediment whatsoever to anyone who wants to start up a no-smoking bar. Set one up yourself if you think it’s such hot shit - apparently you’ll have a veritable stampede of both employees and customers beating a path to your door, willing to work for a pittance and pay top dollar, respectively. You could name it for Bill Clinton - “Don’t Inhale”.

Unskilled workers have more choices than you think, since they’re not tied down to one job type. That’s why they’re “unskilled”. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but it’s the goddamn truth. Either bar workers are amazingly specialised, or they’re unskilled. If they’re the former, then they chose to become that specialised, and thus knew precisely the risks when they went down that career path. If they’re the latter, then there’s fuck all to stop them buggering off and becoming door to door salesmen for ionising air filters and crystal lung cancer cures.

  • For those keeping track, the veritable fuckload is equal to 3.56 metric fucktons, which is approximately the GNP of Andorra as measured in camel shit.
79

Comments made by smokers and their allies in this thread (including the casual disdain for medical and scientific evidence* and the contempt for service industry workers subjected to secondhand smoke) are excellent evidence of the need for continued expansion of regulations prohibiting smoking in public places.

My city went smoke-free in restaurants and bars earlier this year. The bar lobby tried for an exemption, and failed with the voters yet again. More surrounding communities are following suit. A statewide ban may be on the ballot before long.

You’re losing the battle, and glurge like this is part of the reason.
Depending on Penn & Teller for your health information is like obtaining your knowledge of history and foreign policy by reading Doonesbury.

80

Tell you what- when YOUR smoking no longer impinges upon MY sense of smell and taste, or my lungs, THEN I’ll be for removing the bans on smoking. I don’t know if second-hand smoke has any sort of health danger- as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care. I just don’t want to have to BREATHE that shit!

Smokers are all about crowing over how much the bans are impinging upon their rights- well, what about MY rights to not have to deal with the damn smoke? Feel free to smoke in your own homes- as long as I don’t have to deal with it, more power to you.

Your right to smoke ends where my lungs begin. Why is this so hard to understand? If it’s so important for you to have your nicotine fix while you’re out and about, learn to enjoy some sort of non-broadcasting method of delivery. Non-smokers shouldn’t have to deal smokers getting their fix- hell, it should be considered rude, at the very least.

I don’t fart in your face, please don’t smoke in mine.