Smoking ban

[TheGZeus,OnFire]

Originally posted by Bluesman0511 It's also not fair that after people have their kids they can't go out to the bar until 2am anymore. That's a choice people have to make. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Would you mind re-phrasing that for me?

[King Kashue]

Originally posted by Thrash Jazz It's a free country, and tobacco is legal, so get used to it. If the governments in question truly cared about the health problems caused by smoking they would make tobacco illegal. But they won't, for reasons already mentioned.

 

 

 

So, the government is allowed to make tobacco illegal in order to protect the public health (though they won't)...But they're not allowed to ban smoking in bars to accomplish the same goal...okay...

 

Making smoking illegal everywhere = Allowed...

 

Making smoking illegal in some places = not allowed...

 

 

Startling amount of internal logic there...I stand stultified in it's prescence...

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by phunkyhick Smoking bans in bars/restuarants are becoming more and more common these days. I am now a non-smoker, but I am still against this. While I do think that it is a GREAT idea for restaurants, I think it is none of the government's business in bars. If you need to be an adult to enter an establishment, then the government should stay out of it. I do have to say that it would be nice to be able to not smell like smoke when I leave a bar. In Indianapolis, several non-smoking bars have popped up, and they are doing fine for themselves. These places are doing fine, businesswise. There is a demand for it, and eventually the supply will rise to meet the demand without government intervention, at least by my prediction. However, a large number of bar patrons smoke. I don't think that many actual bar patrons want the ban. If you don't want to be around smoke, go to an establishment that allows you to smoke. In Columbs, OH they enacted the ban, and there were about 4 or 5 bars who ignored the ban. They were always packed, and their exponential increase in business EASILY paid the fines. It's just my opinion, but I think the government does have a duty to ensure that families can go out to eat in a smoke-free environment. However, I think that government should not decide how adult businesses are run.

 

We're in agreement. Also, I go to the blues jam at Jakes Ales (a voluntarily smokeless bar) in the Seattle area http://users.owt.com/rpeto/randy/jams.html.

The first thing I noticed when I started going there was that my clothes smelled fine afterwards. My wife loves it! I do to.

[the_big_geez]

Originally posted by Rachel Sampson This is the most ignorant sounding post I have ever read. Gee, do you suppose some of those diseases could be CAUSED by smoking? It's only been PROVEN. Sketchy at best? How do you figure?

 

 

I could easily say the same, oh you of the fertile loin who has apparently overlooked the conscequnces of intercourse in the abscence of contaception. I don't mean to be callous in that remark, however you have left yourself wide open (no pun intended) for such a risposte.

 

I think however that your conclusions on this subject have not yet taken enough of the ramifications at their full worth.

 

Before I go further, let make this clear: I Do not support the idea of smoking; Would I have it to do all over again --with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I'd pass. In fact, I regularly advise those younger than myself who have 'the habit' to desist at once, as it never gets easier to quit tomorrow than today; I personally evidence that fact.

 

Smoking is a vile, disgusting habit and a futile waste of money. But the initial choice to do it is less easily walked away from than even having a child is: I can't get someone to adopt my habit when I no longer care to support it. No, I'm stuck with the committment and the consequences of the choices I have made, whether those choices were made in good judgement or bad.

 

I't also legal.

 

As for the remark that the proof was sketchy at best, it's fairly obvious: Not all persons who smoke, nor all persons who have been exposed to tobacco smoke develop cancer or even serious respiratory disease. In fact, the sizable majority of smokers does NOT develop cancer. This is a scientifically provable fact, not subject to debate.

 

If you want to know the truth about cancer, here it is: If doctors knew what cancer was and how it is caused, it would cease to exist. Dr. Jonas Salk single-handedly brought polio to a nearly complete standstill by determining what it actually was, and addressing his cure to that end and that end alone. Thousands of medicos before him were made wealthy vending all manner of elixirs meant to prevent it --and myriad other maladies-- but none succeeded due to the fact they were based on the same sort of 'junk science' as the anti-tobacco faction uses.

 

I know you are too young to remember a time when the Surgeon General's Warning was NOT on tobacco products in the USA. I am not so young.

 

I am also not so young as to fail to see the enormous tax increase on the product that followed the warning. (NB: The Surgeon General is a government employee, and far from immune to the the pressures brought to bear by his/her superiours, i.e. POLITICS).

 

 

I don't expect anything I've said will change your mind in the least. I'd likle to tell you though (and anyone else who is reading) that the seeming condecension older people sometimes seem to have is borne of one thing and one thing only: You will never reach an age that we have not already lived through and made mistaken choices during. We are actually trying to help you by sharing knowledge we have acquired through our own mistakes. It's really no different than if you were asking how to prevent blisters while playing bass; some of us know some things about it...

 

So, I hope you're not too offended by this post. I'm only telling you the truth.

 

Getting older is the gradual process of finding out what you DON'T know, or should have known already.

 

My wife's mother told her 25 years ago, 'The older you get, the smarter I get...' Now in her mid-30s, she understands the meaning of the remark.

 

My parents are both over 70; I have a tremendous amount more respect for them now than ever in my teens, twenties or thirties; I can finally understand why some of the things they said and did were as they were. Previously, I'd thought I had it all figured out, and they were idiots; old farts.

 

You are not going to get anywhere until you realize that you don't know everything, and never will either. Best you can hope for is to know as much as you can before you die, but it will still be far short of everything.

 

 

One last thing here. It's a real-world example of what happens when fascist regulations like smoking bans take place:

 

I have been a patron of Dick's Den for about 25 years. I'm not a 'regular', but know enough of those who are that I can't go there without meeting someone I know.

 

Dick's has been in business for over 50 years. They are in a 135 year old building. THe norht and south sides of the building are flanked by other buildings. To the west is a small alley they use to load beveridges into and empties out of the business. The alley is shared as an entrance to apartments to the rear. To the east is High street, and a sidewalk.

 

The entrance is about 16x5': post-ban, smokers occupy 2/3rds of this space.

 

The point here is two-fold: A) there is no space in which they might create a smoker's patio, and B) the very thing the non-smokers sought to avoid is now completely unavoidable prior to entry or departure from the bar.

 

(this says nothing of the fact that due to the liquor laws here one cannot take his/her beveridge with him/her to the 'smoker's patio', and therefore must either sup up or walk away from same before going out for smoke. It also says nothing of the fact that not one of the regular patrons --the ones that pay the rent on the building!-- voted, or even complained about smoking being allowed there. Nor did any of the employees.)

 

However, people who live twenty miles away, have never set foot in nor ever will, have set an edict that those who go to Dick's Den must not also consume tobacco in tandem to thier attendance there. I want someone to explain to me what is right about that.

 

I want sonemone to explain to me what's right about them inconveniencing ME in a place I've been supporting for 2 1/2 decades.

 

Rachel, this all goes back to what I've been saying all along: 'Be careful for what it is you wish; you might get it.' If you can't see that there is more to this than meets the eye, you should probably open your eyes a bit wider, for it is YOU and YOUR rights you hold dear that are next on the list of someone who 'disagrees'.

 

Think about it.

[RobRoy]

Well, looking at the "ban it all" numbers, I see there are not many libertarians here.

[the_big_geez]

Originally posted by King Kashue So, the government is allowed to make tobacco illegal in order to protect the public health (though they won't)...But they're not allowed to ban smoking in bars to accomplish the same goal...okay... Making smoking illegal everywhere = Allowed... Making smoking illegal in some places = not allowed... Startling amount of internal logic there...I stand stultified in it's prescence...

 

 

Our resident Student of History makes yet another attempt to ignore it.

 

You honestly don;t see a hypocrisy in the userious taxation rates levied against the users of tobacco, nor expect those funds be replaced at your own burden should we all choose as easily to divest ourselves of this 'chosen' habit as we elected it in the first place?

 

If you think the Gov't is giving up the funds, you should either think again or cite an example to the contrary. GOVERMENTS DON'T GIVE UP MONEY.

 

(Actually, I'm starting to think it's about time you non-smoking cocksuckers started paying your fair share, you malingering bunch of cunts! You've been living on the backs of the 23% of us for too Goddamned long! (Sorry, I've been watching HBO's 'Deadwood' quite a bit lately, and the language is rather 'colorful'...)

 

But, hey.. It's all good, man.

 

I'll just 'decide' not to smoke, and then I won't have to pay the taxes anymore.

 

And if enough of us do the same, YOU can pay it.

 

And together we can pay the welfare check to the the then bankrupt tobacco producers.

 

Or we can all pay the cost of enforcement to bring all the illicit tobacco producers to justice and keep the vile weed off the public market altogether.

 

How bout it, eh?! You pay the taxes I'm paying now because I smoke; I'll quit paying them because I'm a former smoker. Then I'll enroll in a bunch of social programs to help KEEP me off cigs --programs funded by YOU-- 'cause I'm only a victim here after all. Those evil tobacco companies exploited me by hiring a bunch of Hollywood moguls like St. John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart to make smoking seem more romantic and make me want to start, then keep doing it just because I so enjoy pissing people off who don't.

 

Then your taxes can go to curing the personality defects I have that cause me desire to offend others by any means, smoking included. (maybe I can get my bad back thrown in as well...)

 

Then we can all happily live in a cookie-cutter world where everyone is the same and nobody ever pisses anyone else off and everything is good despite the fact it's bereft of any creativity or new thought.

 

Yeah.. That'll be much better!

[TheGZeus,OnFire]

Originally posted by the_big_geez ...Then we can all happily live in a cookie-cutter world where everyone is the same and nobody ever pisses anyone else off and everything is good despite the fact it's bereft of any creativity or new thought. Yeah.. That'll be much better!

haHAAA!

[King Kashue]

Originally posted by the_big_geez Our resident Student of History makes yet another attempt to ignore it.

 

 

And you continue to ignore the fact that I don't support the ban...I'm merely pointing out the internal contradiction in the position...

 

Too many people in this thread have said "it's legal to smoke, so the government can't ban it in bars"...Except it's only legal because the government says it is, so if they say it isn't, then it isn't...

 

Unless you can show me where it says that smoking is a legal right, then it falls under the powers of the State governments to legislate however they want...The Federal government could just as easily legislate it under interstate commerce, meaning that unless tobacco were grown in the state, no one could smoke it...

 

 

 

 

 

(Actually, I'm starting to think it's about time you non-smoking cocksuckers started paying your fair share, you malingering bunch of cunts! You've been living on the backs of the 23% of us for too Goddamned long! (Sorry, I've been watching HBO's 'Deadwood' quite a bit lately, and the language is rather 'colorful'...)

 

 

 

Colorful...Insulting and utterly out of place in a serious discussion...it's a fine line...

[TheGZeus,OnFire]

Originally posted by King Kashue Colorful...Insulting and utterly out of place in a serious discussion...it's a fine line...

Wow.

No wonder you can't grasp the basics of his argument.

You lack all irony and the ability to read past the obvious.

 

Please prove me wrong, I want to hold onto some hope in the human race.

[King Kashue]

Originally posted by TheGZeus,OnFire Wow. No wonder you can't grasp the basics of his argument. You lack all irony and the ability to read past the obvious. Please prove me wrong, I want to hold onto some hope in the human race.

 

 

 

Well, your opinion does play a central part in my self-image, so I'll do my best to bring you around...For if you, a paragon of contemplative calm, refined wit, and universal respect for others, finds me lacking in any aspect, I don't know if I can continue...

 

 

 

On a more serious note, I grasp his argument and don't necessarily disagree, which is why I didn't address it...

 

I'm not ignorant of the financial realities and there is nothing to suggest that I am (other than the condescending perspective of others)...However, the financial realities are not my concern (which is solely about the power the government is allowed to exercise)...

 

Through out this whole discussion (which I now regret re-entering), my only point has been that smoking is not a right, and to speak of it as such is foolish...To act as if the government cannot legislate in this way it ridiculous...

 

Thrash Jazz's argument (which has also been put forth by others) was interally contradictory, that's all I said...

 

As for his colorful language, I realize that he was trying to be funny, but I doubt he would claim that his statement was without at least a measure of genuine vitrol...In any case, I don't think it has a place in a serious conversation...

[TheGZeus,OnFire]

Originally posted by King Kashue Well, your opinion does play a central part in my self-image, so I'll do my best to bring you around...For if you, a paragon of contemplative calm, refined wit, and universal respect for others, finds me lacking in any aspect, I don't know if I can continue... On a more serious note, I grasp his argument and don't necessarily disagree, which is why I didn't address it... I'm not ignorant of the financial realities and there is nothing to suggest that I am (other than the condescending perspective of others)...However, the financial realities are not my concern (which is solely about the power the government is allowed to exercise)... Through out this whole discussion (which I now regret re-entering), my only point has been that smoking is not a right, and to speak of it as such is foolish...To act as if the government cannot legislate in this way it ridiculous... Thrash Jazz's argument (which has also been put forth by others) was interally contradictory, that's all I said... As for his colorful language, I realize that he was trying to be funny, but I doubt he would claim that his statement was without at least a measure of genuine vitrol...In any case, I don't think it has a place in a serious conversation...

Huh?

I don't think anyone's said they CAN'T.

Whether or not they SHOULD is an issue.

[Thrash Jazz]

Originally posted by King Kashue So, the government is allowed to make tobacco illegal in order to protect the public health (though they won't)...But they're not allowed to ban smoking in bars to accomplish the same goal...okay... Making smoking illegal everywhere = Allowed... Making smoking illegal in some places = not allowed... Startling amount of internal logic there...I stand stultified in it's prescence...

 

 

Had you read my previous posts, you'd see that I am FOR the ban.

 

What I dislike is a) the government's hypocrisy in this matter (which is obvious enough), and b) whiny anti-smokers (I am not specifically referring to you or anyone else in this thread in particular, just in general)

[the_big_geez]

And not only that Skipper...


(to recap without parsing every syllable KK has typed, but to let him know that I have read all his responses, and that I appreciate that he has read mine; though I am at odds with the logic used to not address and specific points of my own):

It seems it come down to is smoking a right, or not. I say it IS.

Smoking crack is not a right; it is an activity specifically prohibited by law.

Consuming opiates of any derivation is not a right; it is an activity specifically prohibited by law.

Murdering other people is not a right; it is an activity specifically prohibited by law.

Smoking as an activity --in and of itself is not prohibited by law. At least, not until now...

We could make a comparison to booze: It's not prohibited, but it's use is highly regulated. But there are specific locations in which it CAN be legally purchased and consumed on-premises. Those not wishing to partake need not enter, and usually don't. (It almost sounds like a bad Henny Youngman joke: 'A Teetotaler walks into a bar... For what?! A fistfight, perhaps?')

I am still a bit distressed that you are either unwilling or unable to adress the historical aspects of this matter. I referenced the Nazi connection earlier, but we also have Carry Nation and the whole temperance movement in our own country as a platen for the negative ramifications acts such as this create.

Your historical scholarship is well known here, and is at least from where this writer sits is greatly appreciated --and rarely challanged, for your knowledge of the subject supercedes that of mere mortals. However, there are those among us --myself included-- who are Constitutional scholars. It's possible that from there our difference of view dstems.

The United States Constitution is not an enumeration of rights granted to the populace; it is a specific limitation on the rights of government. Any use of the constitution as a means of construing, implying or otherwise increasing the rights of government over it's constituents is nothing more than a perversion of its intent.

Further, the construct of governance by, of and for the People through the representation of elected persons, i.e. a representative-republican form of government vs. a true democracy was emant to bestill and countermand the fiat of popular thought.

To recap the Columbus smoking ban:

Initially passed by the Health Dept (non-elected officials)

Cast aside by the courts as a law enacted by a non-legislative body.

Enacted by City Council; elected representatives acting within thier rights (but not necessarily with wisdom).

Challenged by ballot initiative; the people acting within thier own rights.

Upheld at the polls, but not immune to politicical positioning (meaning: specifically placed on the same poll day as a presidential election, where there is traditionally a higher turnout.

Challenged again as an amendment exempting certain businesses. Again upheld, and also not immune to pliticical positioning (put on the May ballot, where there were nearly no other issues on which to vote. (Where I live, the only issue at all on the ballot was an MRDD renawal levy. No State issues, nothing. Just that.))

The significance of this is important. A cabal can be orchestrated to almost any desired end: 'Burn her, she's a witch!'; 'Negroes are inferior'; 'Jews are unclean and should be exterminated'.

Where do you want to go with this? You could address the truth of the matter which is that this is dangerous ground on which smoking opponents tread, or you could take a stand for the facts and the historical precedents that prove them.

Over to you...

[King Kashue]

Originally posted by the_big_geez It seems it come down to is smoking a right, or not. I say it IS. Smoking crack is not a right; it is an activity specifically prohibited by law. However, there are those among us --myself included-- who are Constitutional scholars. It's possible that from there our difference of view dstems. The United States Constitution is not an enumeration of rights granted to the populace; it is a specific limitation on the rights of government. Any use of the constitution as a means of construing, implying or otherwise increasing the rights of government over it's constituents is nothing more than a perversion of its intent.

 

 

 

Well, I doubt our differences are because of a different base in scholarship, since I was pre-law Constitutional history for the majority of my undergrad (so we're likely coming from similar places in that respect)...

 

I'm just wondering how the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of rights?

 

You are certainly correct in describing it as a limitation upon the government, but it does so in explicitly granting powers to the government (governments don't have "rights", they have powers), and by specifically granting rights to the people and by explicating them securing them from government interference...

 

Constitutionally speaking, rights and liberties are very specific things (which you already know if you're a constitutional scholar), and just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean you have a right to do it...

 

The Freedom of Speech is a right...It is a specific power that the government cannot abridge...Smoking is not a right...

 

There is nothing proscribing the government from making smoking illegal (a negative right)...And there is nothing prescribing that smoking must be accomodated (a positive right)...The Constitutional rights are universally Negative rights, proscribing governmental interference...

 

Most of the Tobacco industry falls under the explicit powers of the Federal government since it is part of inter-state and international commerce...

 

The regulation of Tobacco at a consumer level falls under the powers of the state, as all things neither specifically delegated to the Federal government nor secured by right do...

 

 

 

If there is a explicit right that tobacco use falls under, I am unaware of it...If you would be kind enough to point it out, I would appreciate it...

[phunkyhick]

Originally posted by Bluesman0511 This is a political issue, not a health issue.

 

 

Thanks for the compliments, and yes it is a political issue. A partial ban in restaurants helps to ensure one's right to personal health.

 

If the government has taken steps to ensure that anyone can go have a smoke-free family dinner and a smoke-free drink then any smell or health hazards that are encountered by entering an establishment for 21+ folks rest solely on the patron.

 

You do have a right to breathe smoke-free air, BY SPENDING YOUR TIME IN THE 95% OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS THAT ARE SMOKE FREE.

 

This thread is getting some insults thrown, and I just want to point that even though a full ban has the highest percentage of all the votes, it would not pass a 50% vote, even on this poll.

 

If this poll were "Would you enjoy being at a non-smoking bar, and do you wish there were more of them?"

 

I think that probably 75% of people would say yes, I know I would.

 

But the question here is not do you like smoke or not, the question is "Do you want the government making these decisions for you"

 

Oh yeah, the majority wants a smoking ban. Folks, it is not all about majority population rule.

 

Let's make African Americans people only count for 3/5 of a vote, and make them pay 35% of their salary to the white folks in the country, and start making them drink in different fountains, because I don't like that rap music they always run around spewing.

 

Yeah, that'll go over real well. An extreme example, but African Americans are a minority. Does that mean that the white majority has the right to push them around? No.

 

Does the hetero majority have the right to tell gay couples they cannot perform anal sex behind closed doors, and that they cannot be affectionate in public? In my book that's a big HELL NO, although some would disagree.

 

It is not all about majority rule. That is not what America is about. Part of this great thing we call America is that minorites still have rights, and they still have power. Yes, the majority should be catered to, but the minority should be respected. That is why for many government operations, 2/3 or more approval (not just 50%) is necessary. That is why Bush has been so divisive for this country, IMO. He has heavily favored the SMALL majority that voted for him. If Bush got 70% of the vote it would be a different story.

[phunkyhick]

Originally posted by Bluesman0511 My choice either way, not the government's.

 

 

The way it should be.

[the_big_geez]

Originally posted by phunkyhick Thanks for the compliments, and yes it is a political issue. A partial ban in restaurants helps to ensure one's right to personal health. If the government has taken steps to ensure that anyone can go have a smoke-free family dinner and a smoke-free drink then any smell or health hazards that are encountered by entering an establishment for 21+ folks rest solely on the patron. You do have a right to breathe smoke-free air, BY SPENDING YOUR TIME IN THE 95% OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS THAT ARE SMOKE FREE. This thread is getting some insults thrown, and I just want to point that even though a full ban has the highest percentage of all the votes, it would not pass a 50% vote, even on this poll. If this poll were "Would you enjoy being at a non-smoking bar, and do you wish there were more of them?" I think that probably 75% of people would say yes, I know I would. But the question here is not do you like smoke or not, the question is "Do you want the government making these decisions for you" Oh yeah, the majority wants a smoking ban. Folks, it is not all about majority population rule. Let's make African Americans people only count for 3/5 of a vote, and make them pay 35% of their salary to the white folks in the country, and start making them drink in different fountains, because I don't like that rap music they always run around spewing. Yeah, that'll go over real well. An extreme example, but African Americans are a minority. Does that mean that the white majority has the right to push them around? No. Does the hetero majority have the right to tell gay couples they cannot perform anal sex behind closed doors, and that they cannot be affectionate in public? In my book that's a big HELL NO, although some would disagree. It is not all about majority rule. That is not what America is about. Part of this great thing we call America is that minorites still have rights, and they still have power. Yes, the majority should be catered to, but the minority should be respected. That is why for many government operations, 2/3 or more approval (not just 50%) is necessary. That is why Bush has been so divisive for this country, IMO. He has heavily favored the SMALL majority that voted for him. If Bush got 70% of the vote it would be a different story.

 

 

Be careful where you go with that, PH. I could provide you with exact figures on percentages of eligible, legally registered voters and the percentages of those persons who actually attended the polls and cast a ballot for the most recent, or for several elections previously and the idea of a 'majority' (70% by your reckoning) takes on quite a different light. That information is as readily available to anyone who has acess to Google as it is to me, so I'm not including it.

 

I appreciate the sentiment of the example, I'm just suggesting it's not the best one to be made.

[the_big_geez]

Originally posted by King Kashue Well, I doubt our differences are because of a different base in scholarship, since I was pre-law Constitutional history for the majority of my undergrad (so we're likely coming from similar places in that respect)... I'm just wondering how the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of rights? You are certainly correct in describing it as a limitation upon the government, but it does so in explicitly granting powers to the government (governments don't have "rights", they have powers), and by specifically granting rights to the people and by explicating them securing them from government interference... Constitutionally speaking, rights and liberties are very specific things (which you already know if you're a constitutional scholar), and just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean you have a right to do it... The Freedom of Speech is a right...It is a specific power that the government cannot abridge...Smoking is not a right... There is nothing proscribing the government from making smoking illegal (a negative right)...And there is nothing prescribing that smoking must be accomodated (a positive right)...The Constitutional rights are universally Negative rights, proscribing governmental interference... Most of the Tobacco industry falls under the explicit powers of the Federal government since it is part of inter-state and international commerce... The regulation of Tobacco at a consumer level falls under the powers of the state, as all things neither specifically delegated to the Federal government nor secured by right do... If there is a explicit right that tobacco use falls under, I am unaware of it...If you would be kind enough to point it out, I would appreciate it...

 

 

For what it's worth, I have (I think) a high school education. I'm not sure as I never bothered to show up to get the scrap of paper to prove it.

 

Nobody has ever asked me for it either...

 

While I think that higher education may allow a person to know more, I don't feel anyone who has one is necessarily better or smarter than anyone else as a result.

 

I am a constitutional scholar by choice and by my own observation.

 

The points you raised most recently make a very interesting legal argument. It's an argument worthy of considerable time parsing every syllable to garner it's exact, legal meaning. Not at all unlike "what the meaning of 'is' is".

 

Such arguments serve only to distract from the actual point. Where prestidigitators succeed is in 'slight of hand'; they distract the eye from the actual event. Where politicians succeed is in 'slight of mouth'; they say something to call your attention away from the real point.

 

This matter is no different, nor is your most recent angle.

 

The flaw in thinking that smoking is not a right begins with the mistaken assumption that the activity is done for the specific purpose of offending others. To within infinitessimally small percentages this is not the reason. While there are some smokers who approach it with zeal and deliberately 'blow smoke in the faces of others', there is no other explanation than that they are assholes. Were tobacco use not an option, they'd wreak their ass-holey, antisocial tendencies by some other means. (Indeed, even with tobacco as an option they probably still manage to offend other people, whether behind the wheel or in any other number of situations we encounter on a daily basis.

 

So, where do you draw the line? Where do you determine acceptable behavior in others?

 

For every one person in the world You can find that has done {censored}-all to offend another person, I can find you a person who is offended nonetheless.

 

And if you or anyone else can't see that, you really should get out more.

 

23% of the population of the United States is a smoker. That's almost a quarter of us.

 

If a quarter of us were Jewish would you say that the jewish cannot have places in which to practice Judaism?

 

Does a quarter of the nation's population have NO rights because the other 3/4s say so?

 

You'd better believe this to be true, for it is not subject to dispute: People who don't smoke have said their rights to be 'somewhere' supercede the rights of those who do smoke to be anywhere while engaging in thier chosen practice.

 

Maybe I should start the 'Church of The Golden Leaf & Amber Fluid'. We'll worship the use of tobacco and alchohol, and we'll have our own temples in which to practice our faith.

 

(An added benefit would be tax-exemption...)

 

Then we'd have a place we could be that nobody can do a goddamned thing about. Freedom of Religion is one of those protected rights, after all...

 

 

[King Kashue]

Originally posted by the_big_geez I am a constitutional scholar by choice and by my own observation. The points you raised most recently make a very interesting legal argument. It's an argument worthy of considerable time parsing every syllable to garner it's exact, legal meaning. Not at all unlike "what the meaning of 'is' is". Such arguments serve only to distract from the actual point.

 

 

 

When the discussion at hand it whether smoking is a legal right, then it's not a distraction to actually know what the definition of the word is in context...Language is important...

 

It's akin to you and I having a conversation about music theory...If you're talking about augmented chords and having me playing the 7th to harmonize with the piano while you play the 4th to harmonize with the guitar, then I need to know what those terms mean...

 

"A Right" has a very specific legal meaning just as the musical terms do, and if I'm using one definition while everyone else uses another, I'm not going to be understood...

 

I'm sorry if you don't agree, but there's not much I can do about that...

 

You said "The flaw in thinking that smoking is not a right begins with the mistaken assumption that the activity is done for the specific purpose of offending others."

 

No, the flaw is thinking that everything that is legal is somehow a right...As I mentioned, rights are very specific things, and it's not "everything that isn't illegal"...Most stuff that isn't illegal is a privilege, not a right...

 

It has nothing to do with personal offense...Speech can be exceedingly offensive, and the right to that speech is explicitly protected...Assembly can be offensive (e.g., the Nazis in Skokie), and that right is specifically protected...

 

There is no legal right to smoke in public places...There is no legal right to smoke...

 

That said, there is also no right to be free of smoke in public places...

 

As I have mentioned multiple times, the power to determine that issue falls to the States, like everything not specifically granted to the Federal government nor denied to the States...

[phunkyhick]

Originally posted by the_big_geez I appreciate the sentiment of the example, I'm just suggesting it's not the best one to be made.

 

 

Well, I should clarify that electing someone president affects 100% of the folks in this country and there is no way around it.

 

Allowing smoking in bars does not affect a large percentage of the American population. Many people simply don't go to bars, for whatever reason. Everyone goes to restaurants, but the number gets a lot smaller if you start talking about dedicated "bars".

 

I imagine it is nowhere near 70% in favor of the ban in bars from people who actually go to bars on a regular basis. My reasoning for that is that if 70% of bar-goers actually were in favor of a ban, you'd see a lot more places banning smoking. Economics.

 

And while alluding to Bush may stir some folks, I don't think that you can deny it. Bush is great for a small majority, but far from it for everyone else. The election results were pretty close to the middle, but his presidency has been far from the middle.

[the_big_geez]

I see what you're saying King, and apparently there is a strong measure of agreement between us, though it may not have been immediately evident.

The whole thing becomes moot: There is no effective differnce between saying 'neither has a right to either smoking or clean air' or saying 'one has a right to smoke or have clean air'. The two effectively cancel each other out.

The reason it has been brought forth here is the fact that many suppose they DO have a right to clean air. My contention is that if this is true, then I also have the right to polluted air.

It all harkens back to the founding documents and the concept of 'pursuit of happiness.' I pursue happiness through (among other things) using tobacco. Other's pusuit follows different courses, some of which may not be within my own measure of enjoyability. For eg., I wouldn't go to a gym, but many do. I wouldn't ask that they NOT pump iron just because I happen to think the end result is far too many people looking like musclebound apes.

All I've been driving at here is that there are a huge number of ramifications to this matter that have been discounted by many, and that disregard of consequence is dangerous.

What's next? Outlawing spandex for anyone who weighs over 130# and/or isn't 'ripped and toned'? The argument in favor is as plainly evident as it is plainly WRONG.

Henry Ford was attributed as saying 'the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history'.

Carrie Nation felt she could alter the future course of history by enforcing her own brand of temperance on everyone...

Hitler... 'Nuff said.

An awful lot of people were interested in outlawing that depraved musical form 'rock and roll'. Before that, jazz.

No matter how you slice it; no matter how it is justified or 'explained away', it CANNOT be a good thing.

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
"Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
"Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me." --Pastor Martin Niem