Well, it’s because most of the tobacco prohibitionists want to ban that foul, disgusting weed in it’s entirety, but an outright ban wouldn’t work. Best to take things in subtle stages.
Yes. They are working the “slippery slope” for all it’s worth, and are counting on it. As people get more accustomed to more and more government interference and politically correct control over their lives, it becomes easier to move on to the next level and introduce even more. And yes, many have admitted that in the end they are really after a total and complete ban.
Who are these “many”? (as in, cite?)
:dubious: Actually, I think it’s probably less about a nefarious plot to introduce “more and more government interference and politically correct control” over people’s lives, and more about the quite reasonable desire not to breathe other people’s smoke.
If smokers or tobacco manufacturers or whoever figures out a way for smokers to smoke in public places while keeping their smoke to themselves, I promise to be right there on the barricades with you fighting for the repeal of smoking bans.
In the meantime, melodramatic vague predictions of DOOOOOM as a consequence of smoking bans aren’t something I’m going to take very seriously.
Well, King James I, for one.
Me, for one.
Ok, not that I feel that the evil government is really trying to move us to some pc-compliant utopia that the general public doesn’t want, but where do you draw the line of reason? We all have desires, and we all think they are reasonable on some level. It’s far from accepted science that the amount of tobacco smoke that you would inhale from being near a smoker while outside poses a health risk. Do you draw the line strictly at tobacco smoke? Are farts acceptable? I sure hope so, because I don’t hold them in while indoors, much less outside.
Even with your expansive definition of “public place” to include “private business that has the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason not specifically made illegal to refuse service for,” you aren’t being a reasonable as you like to think.
Back when I was a kid, I was taught that most problems can be solved by willingness to share. Why not this one? The supporters of smoking bans don’t seem to want to be able to go into a wide range of bars without breathing in other peoples’ smoke, they seem to want to be able to go into every bar without breathing in other peoples’ smoke. You’d see MUCH less opposition to these matters if a certain percentage of bars - maybe 25% - were granted smoking licenses.
How about at making it illegal to gather up leaves, roll them up, light them on fire and inhale the smoke because it is known that it is dangerous both to those that do this and to those that are near them, and because it is physically addictive. This has jack-all to do with being “pc-compliant”, and everything to do with reason. Reason shows us that the crap is addictive and dangerous, and the last time I checked there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any of the amendments guaranteeing the right to stay addicted to dangerous substances.
When farts are
- Voluntary, and
- Carcinogenic
Your comparison will make sense.
The problem I always found was when you had a group of people that includes both smokers and non-smokers. The non-smokers would be willing to go to a place that allowed smoking. The smokers would not be willing to go to a place that did not allow smoking.
I am happy with the smoking ban in Wisconsin but think the idea of banning smoking outside is pretty ridiculous.
I would also be happier if people would litter less. Cigarette butts included.
I am glad we have the ability to use the law to deal with your and your friends’ inability to determine which bar to go to. Maybe we should also ban Italian food because everyone else always wants lasagna for lunch, but Debbie from Accounting says it gives her indigestion.
Maybe Debbie wouldn’t be such a bitch if everyone else didn’t insist on shoving forkfuls of lasagna into her mouth? No, wait-that doesn’t happen in your analogy, which makes it a massive fail.
No - because you’re missing the issue. The problem was, if you had read it before your knee jerk reaction, that you couldn’t allow people a CHOICE between smoking and non smoking bars, because justrob and his buddies were unable to make up their minds where to go.
I’ll tolerate forcing even the majority of bar owners to ban smoking against their wishes. Why can the supporters of smoking bans not tolerate choice for people? Would it be that hard for you to only be able to go into 75% of bars out there without being mugged by smoke? The continued existance of cigar bars in almost every place that has banned smoking in bars doesn’t seem to have led to wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the clean of lung (although the rules for qualifying as a cigar bar seem often to be utterly ludicrous). What is it about allowing say 25% of bars to remain smoker friendly that would cause you such heartache and pain.
It’s that sort of reaction that makes people believe the aim isn’t to avoid having to breath in smoke, but instead to prevent other people smoking.
DianaG asked “Why can’t I have places to smoke AND you have places that are smoke free?” I just gave her the reason it didn’t work for my group of friends. We didn’t have any trouble determining which bar to go to. We went where the smokers could smoke. I just accepted the fact that if I went out with that group of friends I was going to end up smelling like shit at the end of the night.
Now that there is a smoking ban we still go out with the same people, to the same places but the smokers take occassional trips outside for a smoke and I don’t smell like shit at the end of the night.
OK - let me rephrase. I am glad we have the law that restricts a legal activity, and restricts business people, because, if a law was written that restricted fewer people and provided more choice for both customer and business person, you would be unable to convince your chosen group of friends that going to the place you wanted to go was better than going to the place they wanted to go.
That honestly doesn’t strike me as a legitimate and viable use of the coercive power of the state.
Quite true. The reason I object to people smoking in public places isn’t due to health-risk issues, but rather nuisance issues. I don’t like having smoke in the air I’m breathing or lingering in my hair and clothes.
And as long as majorities of other people agree with me, and as long as we’re not violating any actual rights of smokers by not permitting them to inflict their smoke on other people in public places—which we aren’t—then we can make laws to eliminate that nuisance.
I repeat: It’s not the mere fact of smoking itself that bothers me. If smokers weren’t inflicting their smoke on other people, I would be totally opposed to any attempts to legally restrict where and when they could smoke (allowing for legitimate safety issues of course, like banning smoking at gas stations).
If you can smoke while keeping your smoke away from me, then feel free to light up. If you can’t, don’t. Simple as that.
I agree that it’s reasonable to allow indoor smoking in places that are specifically designed to cater to the needs of smokers, such as cigar bars or smoking lounges in airports. But in any place of business that purports to serve the general public, it’s fair to require smokers to keep their smoke to themselves.
Because of this keep-it-to-yourself criterion, I’m more indifferent on the question of outdoor smoking bans in non-crowded outdoor venues when it comes to the smoke-nuisance issue. Generally, it’s possible to have a few smokers scattered through, say, a public park without their bothering anyone else with their smoke.
The primary nuisance issue when it comes to outdoor smoking seems to be not smoke but butt litter. I agree that other kinds of litter are just as bad, but they’re generally produced in smaller quantities by a smaller proportion of the population. If allowing smoking in outdoor areas, especially places like beaches and parks, is inevitably going to result in the place being constantly strewn with butt litter, then I’m not going to mind too much when the consequence is an outright ban on smoking in those places. (I feel the same way about chewing-gum litter too.)
Oh, and by the way, although this may come as a shock to you, I occasionally have a smoke myself. It’s on the order of 1-2 cigarettes per year, when I happen to be hanging out with a smoker friend in a place where smoking is permitted. I think there’s nothing wrong at all with occasional smoking in private, either from a health standpoint or from a public-nuisance standpoint.
So you won’t see me lining up with King James I for any kind of absolute ban on all smoking. But I still maintain that smokers have the responsibility to keep their smoke to themselves in public places, and I will continue to support laws recognizing that responsibility.
If you actually read the post, I am jack-all concerned with being PC-compliant, or being scared of it. Last I checked, prohibitions on addictive substances generally cause worse problems than the one they were intended to cure, so how about we don’t? When you can prove that the minor amount of smoke you might inhale from being on the street is any more of a health problem than farts, I might listen to arguments for banning smoking outside. It is uncomfortable, but possible to hold a fart in until I am home. Hydrogen sulfide is both toxic and flammable, after all. Mowing my lawn, or the two mulberry trees in my back yard are a greater health threat, as they cause harm to persons allergic to them.
Kimstu, if I understand you correctly, your main problem is the butts. Why not just provide ashtrays? My first job involved emptying the ashtrays at the end of each aisle of the grocery store, and sweeping the floor. I emptied plenty of butts out of the trays, and didn’t sweep up many of them. Janitors are less expensive than police, after all.
You don’t understand correctly, and I’m not sure why. I’ve clearly reiterated several times in the post you responded to and in previous posts what my “main problem” is with smoking in public places, and it’s not what you said it was. Allow me to repeat it again in a more attention-getting format:
***The problem with smoking indoors in public places is that SMOKERS IN PUBLIC PLACES DO NOT KEEP THEIR SMOKE AWAY FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
If smokers cannot keep their smoke to themselves, THEN THEY SHOULD NOT SMOKE IN PUBLIC PLACES, and it is not unreasonable for the law to forbid them to smoke in public places.***
Clearer now?
The particular part of my post that referred to butt litter, which seems to be what you somewhat confusedly latched onto as the main point, dealt with smoking in outdoor spaces, where it’s more likely that smokers can keep their smoke away from other people. I’ll clarify that point too:
If smokers in NON-CROWDED OUTDOOR public places can KEEP THEIR SMOKE AWAY FROM OTHERS and NOT LITTER THEIR BUTTS, then I think it’s reasonable to allow them to smoke there.
Actually, no. I still don’t agree with your expansive definition of public places, and, even if I was willing to concede that, I still don’t see why YOU CANNOT JUST SHARE AND ALLOW SOME ‘PUBLIC’ PLACES TO BE SMOKE FRIENDLY WHILE THE MAJORITY ARE SMOKE FREE.
That really doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.