Smoking Ban Dragging? Bill Faces Fight, but Gets 1st Vote Tuesday (WI)

Madison.com ^ | January 5, 2008 | Judith Davidoff

[NCLaw441]

I had the benefit of reviewing the entire thread, but I have made these points many times on prior threads, sometimes well-received and sometimes not so much.

[Eric Blair 2084]

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself. The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible, or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated. It essentially requires a system of checks and balances, like that explicitly incorporated in our Constitution..."

-- Milton Friedman, The New Liberal's Creed: Individual Freedom, Preserving Dissent Are Ultimate Goals," May 18, 1961

[Eric Blair 2084]

You’ve made your points. The smell of smoke stinks. Only I like it.

But the fetid breath of tyranny and government control smells a lot worse.

[timm22]

Well, as I’m sure you know, the anti-smoking lobby believes it’s their liberty (a right to clean air or some such) that they’re fighting for. ... I assure you plenty of proponents of various anti-smoking policies do in fact value liberty.

I think that's true in many cases. However, I think the anti-smoking side comes to the wrong conclusions about liberty. Their right to smoke-free air does not include forcing others to provide them with such an environment on private property, any more than my right to free speech requires others to provide me with a microphone or an attentive ear.

I don't hold them entirely responsible for this mistake since the political, legal, and educational establishment in this country has made a concerted effort to distort the understanding of both individual rights and private property in this country.

Of course, I suspect that there are also some smoking-ban advocates who are motivated primarily by a desire to increase their own profits or to simply increase their own convenience. However, as I will explain below, this does not particularly bother me.

I continue to believe that the biggest opponents of smoking bans are themselves smokers.

First, let me say that I am a frequent (and hopefully, somewhat persuasive) contributor to these threads...and I am a nonsmoker.

Respectfully...what difference does it make if the opponents are smokers or not? Arguments are either valid or they are not. They gain no more or no less legitimacy depending on who is proposing them.

I can understand bringing up an advocate's motivation when the issue involves empirical claims or studies. Since numbers can be fabricated and study methods flawed, it makes sense to know something of the person presenting the data. But even then, bringing attention to the advocate's possible ulterior motives can serve only as a call to increased scrutiny, not to an outright rejection of the data. In this debate, which is largely based on political philosophy, I don't really see the point in bringing up hidden interests. If an argument's reasoning is sound, it is sound even coming from a smoker.

As for the emotionalism in the debate, I will concede that from some individuals it may just be a result of having their habit threatened. But it is just as conceivable, if not more so, that people are legitimately outraged at a clear abuse of government power. Though my written contributions to these threads are often bland and excruciatingly long-wided, rest assured that I am shouting at the monitor and waving my arms whenever I read certain responses...and again, I am a nonsmoker!

Consider what the supporters of smoking bans are proposing- that we abrogate the rights of a property owner to address a "danger" that is easily discoverable, easily avoided, and a mere nuisance. That in itself should be able to inspire irrational reactions from anyone who values freedom, smoker or not.

[timm22]

I suggest referendums, by the way, as a way to allow the public to voice their opinions on matters which they are qualified to judge.

Just to clarify, you do not believe that the public has a general power to control the use of private property through referendum, correct?

So for example, the public is not qualified to judge on the menu selection, decorations, or service quality of a private restaurant through referendum.
(I leave open certain specific restrictions, such as sanitary conditions or building safety condtions)

[timm22]

What is your personal position on smoking bans? Would you vote for one?

[flintsilver7]

I’ve made it clear throughout this thread that I do not support such legislation pertaining to private property.

[timm22]

Ok. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but it was a little confusing due to the sequence of the posts.

[flintsilver7]

That’s my fault. I often have to explain my intent multiple times, which tells me I should be clearer at first.

[SheLion]

Thanks for this information, Eric!

[Raycpa]

No, but I must admit I like the outcome of the votes.

[timm22]

No, but I must admit I like the outcome of the votes.

Since you are also opposed to smoking bans, perhaps you could recommend some more effective arguments that could be used by our side?

[elkfersupper]

Elk, my friend, please calm down.

No, thank you.

Compromise and reasonable discussion is what got us to where we are today.

[Raycpa]

I have but the smoking folks don’t want to here them because they deny they contribute to the problem. In short, my proposal is for the smokers to become more considerate and launch a nation wide PR campaign of being polite smokers.

Unfortunately, the smokers on this forum are in denial about the affect they have on others or don’t give a crap. They prefer to address an issue that the other side doesn’t give a crap about because all they want is consideration for their space.

[timm22]

I have but the smoking folks don’t want to here them because they deny they contribute to the problem. In short, my proposal is for the smokers to become more considerate and launch a nation wide PR campaign of being polite smokers.

Interesting idea, and not without its merits. As part of this campaign, do you think it is reasonable for smokers to request certain venues where they can smoke as they please? In other words, do you think this scenario is fair:

Smokers are generally considerate and polite, checking with nearby nonsmokers before they light up under reasonable circumstances. However, smokers are allowed to have some places that are "smoker friendly", meaning that they can relax and just smoke if they please.

It's kind of the same thing that parents of small children have. Generally, there is an expectation that their kids will behave themselves and stay relatively quiet. However, there are places like Chuck E. Cheese (a kid's restaurant), bring-your-baby matinees, and church "cry rooms" available for them that allow kids to be kids. These places give parents a break from the stress of keeping their kids in line all the time. Smokers would have similar areas, for example, bars that are traditionally very smoky.

Fair deal?

Unfortunately, the smokers on this forum are in denial about the affect they have on others or don’t give a crap.

I can't account for all smokers on this forum, but most of the ones I know at least claim to be polite when in the company of nonsmokers. The exceptions I generally see are usually a reaction to particularly rude posters or a reaction to the militant nonsmoker. By militant non-smoker, I mean the type of person who would walk from one end of a public park to the other to complain about someone holding an unlit cigarette.

Also, keep in mind that some of us are nonsmokers, myself included.

They prefer to address an issue that the other side doesn’t give a crap about because all they want is consideration for their space.

What is the issue the "other side doesn't give a crap about"? Should the other side give a crap about this issue?

[swarthyguy]

That is certainly the blueprint along with the fake SHS data pushed onto the media by the WHO etc.

But, see, you have to understand the antismoking jihad in its full context.

After the events of September 11 2001, when evil, dastardly and despicable smokers brought down the World Trade Centers and seriously damaged the Pentagon, America turned decisively against the perpetrators of these heinous acts.

Smokers.

Then, on to Iraq. Why?

Saddam smoked big fat cigars all the time.

Heard the news about a RI school wanting to RFID enabled backpacks for all the chillun?

HAHAHAHA! Inshallah, Mullah!