The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment

CNSNews.com ^ | May 26, 2003 | Robert W. Tracinski

[Lorianne]

Did you see the question I was responding to?

[Lorianne]

I agree. I'm against goverment setting policy for private businesses or property owners.

My comments are directed at the public realm. I lobbed against the recent smoking ban in restaurants in my city even though I'm a rabid non-smoker. It is simply not good policy to dictate to private business owners what their smoking policy should be. Before the ban, I simply did not eat in restaurants where smoking was allowed or where smoke was not adequately kept away from me in a non-smoking section. In fact I can't count the number of times I left a restaurant after ordering, without paying, if smoke got to me in a non-smoking area. I think that sent a clear message that I didn't like the way they did business.

Now that the smoking ban in in place, I'm enjoying going out to dinner in many places where I wouldn't before, but I still think its wrong, wrong, wrong policy. However, I would support a ban on smoking in public property.

[Lorianne]

Exactly. Or how about bans against public nudity? I can't walk down public sidewalks naked or be naked on public beaches and parks.

How about noise laws? I can't walk or drive down public streets sidewalks or public parks with a suped up boom box playing rap music at bone shaking decibels.

I can't park on the public sidewalk in front of your house and play loud music all night, or have a rowdy street party in front of your house even though its a public street.

There are literally thousands of examples of laws restricting my freedom to do anything I want, anytime, any public place. Who's rights are more important, mine to do what I want, or others?

[Gabz]

You and I will never have an arguement on this issue.

A self-proclaimed anti-smoker who understands the true difference between private and public property is truly a breathe of fresh air.

I agree, as do most smokers, with you about indoor taxpayer funded public places - out of doors is an entirely different story. Outside it should not be an issue whatsoever.

[Gabz]

One non-smoker cannot ruin dinner for a room full of smoking diners.

I beg to differ - I have had it happen to me on numerous occassions. A non-smoker who opted for "first available" seating and wound up in the smoking section and then proceeded to make continuous complaints to the staff and management that the smoke was bothering him/her which forces the staff to then harrass the law abiding smokers.

In other words, to paraphrase you - one militant-anti-smoker in a restaurant can screw up even the best of meals for everyone in the area.

[Eaker]

one smoker in a restaurant can screw up even the best of meals for everyone in the area.

Who the hell keeps forcing you into the smoking section of restaurants? I am so sick of this argument. NUT-UP and tell someone that is smoking to please stop and have them directed to the smoking section.

Can't you people stand up for yourselves JUST ONCE???

Geez......

Eaker

[Gabz]

Would you be agreeable to a taxpayer referendum on the matter of outdoor public places regardless of the outcome?

I know you didn't address this to me, but referendums are a pet peeve of mine.

The only way I would agree to a referendum on the issue of outdoor smoking on public property would be that both sides of the issue would be given equal time to address the issue.

The reason I say this is because those promoting these types of referendum are not local grassroots groups, but rather fronts for very highly paid anti-smoker organizations that get more grant money by enacting more anti-smoker rules and regulations.

The people opposing these types of referendums are every day average folks, truly grass roots type people, that get creamed because they have no money to mount the campaigns to get their side heard.

Believe me - I know - I've been dealing with this issue and several similar ones for more than 15 years, and my husband has started wondering when I am going to get a job that actually pays me something.

[Eaker]

just go around brandishing an UNLIT cigarette all the time

I enjoy doing this. The hypocrites come oozing out of the cracks to choke and have seizures. I had one woman state that it psychologically affected her too, once she realized what a gagging ass she had made of herself. Her husband, with a look of disgust on his face, admitted that she had other mental problems too.

He walked out shaking his head, leaving her at the counter.

Eaker

[SauronOfMordor]

For just one example (out of hundreds of thousands), I cannot walk around nude in public or even on my own property in my front yard. There are literally thousands of laws which restrict your freedom to do anything you choose. That is the "price" of living with other people. If you want to do anything you please any time, you have to live outside of communities of law.

There are hundreds of public establishments in my home state where you can walk around as nude as you want to. Of course, they upset some of the neighbors, but that's life. Just don't do it in very high heels, or you'll fall off the stage

You can also walk around as nude as you want in your own back yard PROVIDED you are not visible to the neighbors or the public street. Your right to do things on your private property tend to start getting curtailed when they affect people outside your boundary lines

Ideally, as long as your (legal) activities are on your own property, and do not emit effects past your property line, you should be free to do as you please on your own property, and this freedom should extend to those you invite into your property. Things like smoking, running around naked, screaming your opinions (but not so loudly that you disturb the neighbors), etc.

[freedumb2003]

>>Those are the same reasons I don't go to Walmart, inside McDonalds and a dozen other places. <<

The naked people? *Yeech*

[Tailgunner Joe]

but would they involve the government if they were NOT hired because they were smokers?

We conservatives don't believe it's the governments job to guarantee you employment. We believe that employers should be able to hire or fire people for whatever reason they want.

[Lorianne]

Huh?

I think you mix up private and public places. I am restricted BY LAW from doing certain things in public places, ie not privately owned property.

Smokers are argueing they should be allowed to smoke on public property, even though other laws prohibit people from doing other things on public property. Smoking becomes a "special right" in the public sphere.

[Tailgunner Joe]

There are literally thousands of examples of laws restricting my freedom to do anything I want, anytime, any public place. Who's rights are more important, mine to do what I want, or others?

You obviously think that the rights of others to do whatever they want to you are more important.

[Lorianne]

That may be true of conservatives, but I doubt seriously if it is true of smokers.

[Gabz]

You've got to be kidding me?????

Any government which allows this sort of intrusive, addictive and contaminating behavior to go unchecked is negligent.

You've got to be kidding me?????

It is a waste of time to argue with people who have given up their freedom to an addiction and reason from a basis of self-indulgence.

What addiction?????

The only addiction I see when it comes to smoking tobacco is the same government you say should control what I do while they are balancing their budgets upon my continued use of tobacco.

Your rant and outrage is directed in the wrong direction.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Liberal smokers will just have to accept the governments tyrrany over their lives along with their socialist dependence on handouts.

Conservatives prefer to be free to smoke, and free not to hire smokers.

[Lorianne]

That makes no sense. Follow the discussion. I believe we have to have laws, the question is how to formulate them.

If you don't think we need laws, state it. Do we need any laws? If so, which ones? Who makes them? Are the people who make laws personally biased?

[Gabz]

Regardless of how data can be manipulated to get whatever meaning desired, the tools and machinery in government and the legal system that have been and are being used to treat smokers like leppers WILL be used by some other group who desire to make a name for themselves simply because they don't like the habbits of another part of the population.

It's not another group doing it and it has already started against the fast food industry. John Banzhaf, bottom feeder extrordinairre who started the lawsuits against the tobacco industry has already started filing lawsuits against fast food and says he will use the same tactics he used against BT to go after BF and will continue until he succeeds. He's got the money to do it - he nickled and timed BT to the point where he is now a multi-millionaire and is using that money to bankroll his suits against the food industry.

People like that make me ill. Literally.

[Eaker]

That may be true of conservatives, but I doubt seriously if it is true of smokers.

Enough. You have been allowed to get by with wanting to walk around naked on damn near every post that you have made, but you crossed a line here. There are decency laws and coruption of a minor laws on the books that address this issue. No such laws concerning smoking.

Find another "strawman" as no one here wants to see you walking around naked. Damn sure not while they are eating lunch or dinner with their family

Further, if there was a naked only dining section in a private restaurant, I would have no problem with that. I don't smoke while walking through the non-smoking part of restaurants, so I would expect that you dressed like a normal person as you passed through the family section to YOUR preferred section.

Eaker

[laredo44]

Yes, thankfully it was just a hypothetical.