No more than any person who smells bad is poisoning the air you breathe. Are you willing to get behind legislation banning people with poor personal hygiene from public venues?
Yes, always. Possibly not in every city, I’ll admit, since I haven’t been to every city.
No, the logical inference is that the pro-legislation lobby spends more money than the anti-legislation lobby.
I know this wasn’t addressed to me but since a car really isn’t essential to me, let me take a swing at it.
Non-essential driving is:
Driving past perfectly habital houses within walking distance of your job so you can live in a “better” (read “whiter and more affluent”) neighborhood.
Driving a car when a motorcycle, bicycle or mass transit is available and reasonable.
Driving past family businesses to save 8% at some box store.
I’ll allow vacations and family emergencies as being “essential” but personally I’m more likely to look for another option. But that’s just me.
As for the second part ------- clearly you have never been on the South Side of Pittsburgh or at any of our sporting arenas. At Heinz or Mellon you don’t have drinkers smoking but you do have people pissing in the sinks. And on the South Side you have people pissing (and more sometimes) on people’s front doors and steps. I was part of Santarchy in the South Side last Saturday. I ended up wearing a LOT of booze and saw such amazing things that even I was surprised. Let’s just say that even though most of the places are non-smoking, I won’t be eating or drinking in them again. Second hand smoke? That’s the least of your worries.
(The nicest and in many ways cleanest bar we were in? The Smiling Moose - which allows smoking.)
Every job comes down to money or health? Figuring out how to stop them from smoking in their homes? How absurd to you want to go? You wont get a discussion if you come up with stupid crap like that.
Actually, based on your posts, the question more becomes how absurd do you wish to go?
You don’t want to restrict smoking in actual public space such as parks and sidewalks – just private businesses that are none of your concern. And somehow you have found a mystical workplace where there isn’t just no smoke but no stress or risk of any kind. Where no co-worker can ever frustrate you and little birdies sing happy tunes all day long. Money just magically appears in your pocket with no risk to you whatsoever.
And you also found this strange clause in the Constitution that says you have the right to go anywhere you please, any time you want, and around anyone who happens to be there ----- and you have the right to make them conform to your standards no matter who else is harmed.
But I’m the one talking “stupid crap”. Hmmmmmm - interesting point of view! :dubious:
You are not slowing down. Who is doing the harm? Smokers are giving second hand smoke for non smokers to inhale into their bodies, Smokers are smelling up other peoples clothes. Smokers are putting burn marks on other peoples pool tables, car upholstery and furniture. Smokers are throwing butts out their windows. Yet you claim asking smokers to smoke outside is harming them? Wow. How twisted can you get?
If you didn’t make them smoke outside, they wouldn’t be throwing their butts where you can see them or smelling up your clothes as you head to work. You wouldn’t have to suck down their second-hand smoke just to wait for a bus. And when was the last time a smoker barged into your home or a business you owned just to burn your pool table, furniture and car upholstery? Just how twisted can you get?
I’ve known self-righteous bastards to enter businesses demanding smoking stop; seizing someone else’s property for all rights and purposes. That’s what these bans are all about after all. But smokers en mass going into a business and demanding the right to behave as you describe? As we like to say around here ----- cite, Gonzo?
The “twisted” and “stupid crap” continue ------- but hardly from me.
Asking smokers to smoke outside isn’t harming them, it’s harming YOU! Public places you can’t avoid; private business you can avoid. Does that help make it any more clear?
If it were the problem that smoker are? Maybe. Is B.O. anywhere near the menace that smokers were? Not really.
Not at all.
Are smokers anywhere near the menace cars are? Not really. Does that mean I can have your car keys now and fire most of the autoworkers?
(You caught me in a less than sympathetic mood today. I changed seats on the 42S because the lady who sat next to me must have put her deodorant and perfume on with an industrial applicator. The guy I moved next to had to be supporting a three pack a day habit. The cigarette smell is just a memory ------- the perfume I can still physically taste and I’m going to have to have my coat cleaned to remove it. Alex, what is “I’ll take chain-smokers over most idiots” please?)
Trotting this out again?
Yookeroo, I may have missed, but did you (or anyone) answer this?
The fact is we are moving toward electric cars and hybrids for exactly that reason. But you know that don’t you.? We are attempting to clean your air . We are trying to make it better and safer for you and your children. Copenhagen is having a huge meeting of world leaders to address the dirty air and environmental damage we do.
You on the other hand are fighting for the right to pollute air in bars and restaurants. Society is attempting to clean the environment. We recognize the damage we have done. Reality has hit us. But for some warped reason ,you guys think you have a special right to pollute.
Here, I’ll flesh it out a bit:
Consider this policy:[ul][li]All people with access to public transportation MUST use it to travel. This rule does not change if it increases your commute time.[]Any destination X miles or less (including places of employment or public transportation stops) cannot use cars. Walk, bicycle–it’s up to you.[]In the even that a destination is farther than X miles, car travel is permitted only for essential travel–i.e., travel to work, to shop for necessities, etc. Non-essential includes (but is not limited to) travel to entertainment events, bars, restaurants, vacation destinations, and other similar destinations.Exceptions would be granted for true, time-sensitive emergencies (e.g., medical emergencies).[/ul]The basis for this public policy is simple. I do not want to breath car emissions or deal with the health (and other) issues associated with automobile greenhouse gases to any extent more than necessary. Car emissions vary directly with certain health problems. So, it’s another, “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” argument. We can argue about crafting the public policy details, but picture some policy, whatever it is, that restricts any non-essential car travel, period.[/li]
Anything wrong with this analogy? If it’s wrong to fire up a cigarette in a bar, isn’t it wrong to drive to the same bar, for roughly the same reasons? And, if so, why can’t I demand that you cease and desist?
gonzo, you reply doesn’t do the trick. I want you to to stop as described NOW, because driving your car affects public health, and I’m a member of the public. I don’t care if you foresee some Utopian solution someday. I want you to keep your vile car emissions to yourself right now. However this inconveniences you is no concern of mine.
I had to ------- I still haven’t gotten your keys and there is a mechanic out there I have just been itching to fire!
OK ----- lets go at it this way. No one can really argue that cars in this country are (pardon the expression) out of control. They have about the same place in society that smoking did when I was young and even the Flintstones smoked in commercials. There is also no real argument that they are killing people at alarming rates despite our efforts to design the safe car. People (like you) are hooked so we need to help them with their addiction. It’s time to take action now ---- as they say, for the good of society!
First thing we do is ban their advertising on television; the tube is a big influence after all.
And we need a warning label such as “Sitting in an automobile has been determined to significantly contribute to death, injury and an assortment of diseases including cancer and heart disease” (cancer from the pollution and heart disease from the stress and lack of exercise involved) and have those warning labels printed on the side of every car made. And the magazine ads and websites of all the auto manufacturers and related industries as well.
We need some great overblown stories on 60 Minutes about how many children are killed by second-hand driving. The hit-and-runs, kids killed in car wrecks - stuff like that. Let’s throw in some gang activity and drunk driving as well just to make it as scary as we can. We need to take these programs into the schools so these kids realize Daddy’s car is killing them and their friends. Don’t grow up and get a car like your stupid Daddy did ----- you are smarter than that.
We already have a couple towns and places where cars are banned – we expand on them by rewarding them with tax incentives and we celebrate them in national campaigns. We require government workers to car pool; heck, lets just provide them with their own specialized mass transit. We’ll close all parking lots on government property; if someone wants to do something as unhealthy as to drive, let them park far away where I don’t have to see them or have their second-hand pollution in my face.
And all those people crippled or killed in car wrecks? The states can sue Ford and GM for their health care costs! Let’s face it, Ford knows that people are going to die and be injured in their cars ----- make them pay the tab! They created the addicts, let them bear the cost!
And the oil makers aren’t clean either. Lets put a sin tax on gasoline – say like triple the current price? We can always raise it more as we go along just to make driving less and less attractive.
Hollywood is going to be behind us (mostly because we’re going to make sure they’re exempt). We’ll get them to start cutting cars out of movies and TV shows unless they are shown in a bad light. Like the Humphrey Bogart type characters are so rare today, we’ll make the CSI Miami “drive constantly” characters just as rare in the future. They will still “solve crimes” but instead of HVs we’ll put them in Prisms and make sure every seat is occupied.
THEN FINALLY once we have reduced the level of Americans who regularly use a car to something like ------- ohhhhh, let’s say 25%. Then we can take the serious steps and restrict all cars from all our cities and industrial areas where the unfortunate workers of our nation are constantly exposed to the second-hand dangers they represent.
Wow!!! We really have something here!!! Think of the fringe benefits! Neighborhood businesses will return and the economy will thrive! Our inner-cities will have the greatest rebirth ever seen. And drive-by shootings will be something you just read about in history books. We’re Liberals ------ we care. So lets do it now!
Or we just go back to being liberals and admitting that folks are going to make choices we don’t like ------ and anything we do to stop them is probably going to be as wrong as their “wrong”.
Could it be you really don’t see the illogic in your defense? Should we all move to warm climes and get rid of air conditioning? Perhaps we should eliminate water heaters. We don’t need hot water for showers.We should walk everywhere but not wear clothes or shoes. No public transportation should be allowed, it takes away from your right to smoke. It after all ,may pollute.
But smoking is a right. Polluting a restaurant is a right that should not be diminished. We should go back to the good old days of smoke filled rooms. When your smoking permeates my clothes I should be happy to go to the river and pound the smoke out of my clothes. A washer and dryer after all , justify smoking.
No ------- at least personally I think everyone has an EQUAL right. Smokers aren’t anything special but neither are you.
Besides, we’ve known about the dangers posed by automobiles as long as we’ve know about the dangers of smoking - possibly longer. You haven’t done enough and you haven’t done it fast enough. In other words, you have not faced reality as you claim. You’re an addict and we’ll just have to deal with you as such and regulate your habits. But remember, Gonzo ------- it’s for your own good.
<<We are attempting to clean your air . We are trying to make it better and safer for you and your children.>>
Hmmmmm - seems I heard that argument before. Oh, that’s right - from the business owners who wanted to keep their places smoking and advertised as such so you can avoid them if you wish.
That makes me curious. Let me try something here as a little exercise -
"The fact is we are moving toward electronic cigarettes and hybrid blends for exactly that reason. But you know that don’t you.? We are attempting to clean your air . We are trying to make it better and safer for you and your children. People are always having huge meetings of business leaders to address the dirty air and environmental damage we do in a very few select locations.
You on the other hand are fighting for the right to pollute air EVERYWHERE. Society is attempting to clean the environment. We recognize the damage we have done. Reality has hit us. But for some warped reason ,you guys think you have a special right to pollute with your cars."
Again, maybe its just me but ---------- it seems like there is enough the same to justify consideration of the two situations as equals.
Do you see the illogic of your defense? Washers and hot showers don’t run out and kill children by running them over. Your car can! And the amount of pollution from your car? My furnace is 98% efficient ------- how’s your car stack up? And I’m betting you spend more time in your car than you do restaurants or bars; probably more money too. Your car has somehow become a “right”? C’mon ------ I don’t buy that from smokers. What I DO INDEED buy is that smokers, like you, have a right to decide for themselves.
As for the rest? Sounds fine to me. I can live without air conditioning; Lord knows I did for the majority of my life. I mostly wear shoes because businesses say I have to to enter and I could get used to nudism.
So step away from your car slowly ------- it’s for your own good and the good of society. Don’t be afraid; it won’t hurt at all. It’s just like quitting cigarettes.
At some point in all this can we start talking logical smoking bans/controls?
I’ll start:
All publicly owned and shared spaces. Sidewalks, mass transit (both actual vehicles and stops), publicly owned buildings such as court houses and office buildings. What I am shooting for here is places those who are physically harmed by smoke simply cannot avoid.
Essential services. Basic food and health is hard to work your way around - so lets consider groceries and drug stores/pharmacies. We’ll throw in clothing stores as well. We’ll exempt cigar stores and smoke shops.
You as a property owner or business owner, you have the right to ban or restrict smoking on your property. Period. I’ve been around a fair number of years and I recall that that was always the case. No good reason to change that now.
Any other suggestions?
It has nothing at all to do with smoking. I can see you’re confused. Ignore the smoking issue for a moment. I want you to stop unnecessary driving because it creates a health issue for me. Stop driving to bars, for example. Now, where do you get off driving for such trivial matters when it creates a health issue for me?
I’ve dealt with you before, gonzo, and I realize this is your cue to ignore the actual question. But I figured, what the hell, let’s give it another try. Go ahead, fire away!
[quote=“Stratocaster, post:172, topic:520818”]
Here, I’ll flesh it out a bit:
Consider this policy:[ul][li]All people with access to public transportation MUST use it to travel. This rule does not change if it increases your commute time.[]Any destination X miles or less (including places of employment or public transportation stops) cannot use cars. Walk, bicycle–it’s up to you.[]In the even that a destination is farther than X miles, car travel is permitted only for essential travel–i.e., travel to work, to shop for necessities, etc. Non-essential includes (but is not limited to) travel to entertainment events, bars, restaurants, vacation destinations, and other similar destinations.[*]Exceptions would be granted for true, time-sensitive emergencies (e.g., medical emergencies).[/ul]The basis for this public policy is simple. I do not want to breath car emissions or deal with the health (and other) issues associated with automobile greenhouse gases to any extent more than necessary. Car emissions vary directly with certain health problems. So, it’s another, “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” argument. We can argue about crafting the public policy details, but picture some policy, whatever it is, that restricts any non-essential car travel, period.[/li][/QUOTE]
What’s the economic impact? What are the chances this could be pulled off?
I’m all for cleaning up emissions as much as possible. Is there anyone who isn’t (well, maybe Republicans)? And we are slowly working towards cleaner air. So to try to imply that we hate cigarette smoke, but are quite all right with smog from cars isn’t really germane. I’m very much OK with cleaning up our polluted air.
It’s quite convoluted. Cleaning up emissions? Not easy. Breathable air in clubs/bars/restaurants? Super simple.
I’ll take the last part first. If you really aren’t worried about property rights, both problems are equally easy to solve. And in a way, you are setting the stage to make our job easier with the precidances you are setting.
Yoo ----- I don’t know about anyone else in this debate but I’m not kidding, this is one of my dreams in life. What will be the economic impact and what are the chances we can pull it off? Hard to say. But again, using the model you’ve already given us with cigarettes ------ weren’t folks asking about the same questions back 40 years ago? I’m betting folks back then thought the same thing about the economics and viability of smoking.
“I’m all for cleaning up emissions as much as possible. Is there anyone who isn’t (well, maybe Republicans)? And we are slowly working towards cleaner air.”
Cigarette folks said the same thing; they are saying it now in regards bars and restaurants. If it isn’t working for them in the end, what makes you think you are so special? Your “right to drive” is about in the same place in the Bill of Rights as their “right to smoke” - so unless you are my age or Gonzo’s or planning on dieing soon, I would copper my bets just to be safe. The Dopers 40 years from now may see a world where folks think about all these cars the same way we do all those smokes.