The slippery slope
•Jun 14, 2006
by Walter E. Williams
Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.
In the early stages of the anti-tobacco campaign, there were calls for "reasonable" measures such as non-smoking sections on airplanes and health warnings on cigarette packs. In the 1970s, no one would have ever believed such measures would have evolved into today's level of attack on smokers, which includes confiscatory cigarette taxes and bans on outdoor smoking.
The door was opened, and the zealots took over. Much of the attack was justified by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondhand smoke study that used statistical techniques, if used by an academic researcher, would lead to condemnation if not expulsion. Let's say that you support the attack on smokers. Are you ready for the next round of tyranny using tactics so successful for the anti-tobacco zealots?
According to a June 2 Associated Press report, "Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way." The story pertains to a report, funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled, "Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity." The FDA says the report could help the American restaurant industry and consumers take important steps to successfully combat the nation's obesity problem. Among the report's recommendations for restaurants are: list calorie-content on menus, serve smaller portions, and add more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA accept the findings of the report.
Right now, the FDA doesn't have the authority to require restaurants to label the number of calories, set portion sizes on menus or prohibit allowing customers from taking home a doggie bag. That's for right now, but recall that cigarette warning labels were the anti-tobacco zealots' first steps. There are zealots like the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest who've for a long time attacked Chinese and Mexican restaurants for serving customers too much food. They also say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." They've called for caffeine warning labels, and they don't stop there. The Center's director said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses and meat." Visions of higher taxes are music to politicians' ears.
How many Americans would like to go to a restaurant and have the waiter tell you, based on calories, what you might have for dinner? How would you like the waiter to tell you, "According to government regulations, we cannot give you a doggie bag"? What about a Burger King cashier refusing to sell french fries to overweight people? You say, "Williams, that's preposterous! It would never come to that."
I'm betting that would have been the same response during the 1970s had someone said the day would come when cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., and Friendship Heights, Md., would write ordinances banning outdoor smoking. Tyrants always start out with small measures that appear reasonable. Revealing their complete agenda from the start would encounter too much resistance.
Diet decisions that people make are none of anybody else's business. Yes, there are untoward health outcomes from unwise dietary habits, and because of socialism, taxpayers have to pick up the bill. But if we allow untoward health outcomes from choices to be our guide for government intervention, then we're calling for government to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
Amen brother.
Ooohhh... lookee'
Call for tougher junk food ad ban
The government's food watchdog is pushing for a ban on TV commercials advertising junk food before the 9pm watershed.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) says proposals drawn up by media regulator Ofcom to reduce the effect of junk food ads on children do not go far enough.
The three sets of options stop short of a pre-watershed ban.
But the FSA says banning such ads for products like crisps and fizzy drinks would help protect children's health.
It is estimated that 14% of children in England are clinically obese.
Earlier this year, Ofcom proposed tighter restrictions on the timing and content of junk food commercials as part of a consultation.
One option was to ban the ads in commercial breaks in programmes for pre-school children.
The FSA would join a groundswell of support for the ban from numerous groups including parents
British Heart Foundation
Another was to ban or restrict them in programmes for the under-10s.
At a meeting in Bristol on Thursday, the FSA rejected all Ofcom's options.
It argues a ban on junk food commercials before 9pm would extend protection to older age groups.
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) said it was "delighted" that the FSA was pressing Ofcom for a pre-watershed ban.
It claims more than two-thirds of parents would support such a move.
Campaigns officer Josh Bayly said: "The obesity problem in this country has got to such a serious state now that any action we can take we really must take.
"Around 80%-90% of television advertising is junk food advertising - food that is high in fat, sugar and salt.
"With children watching over 20 hours of television a week now it is a very, very considerable influence over their food choices."
Sue Davies, chief policy adviser to the consumer magazine Which? also backed the FSA position.
She said: "We hope that Ofcom can now accept that its approach is completely flawed and put children's health first."
However, broadcasters said such a ban could cost them £140m in lost advertising revenue.
The deadline for responses to the consultation is 30 June.
Last month, it emerged that the National Heart Forum was preparing an application for a judicial review over the consultation.
The heart charity said it was unlawful and unfair to exclude the possibility of a pre-watershed ban.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/5081964.stm
Published: 2006/06/15 13:43:05 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Goddammit, I'm gonna eat like a pig if I want, and no government's gonna stop me.
Really? And if you have private property and you want your customers to be able to smoke....
If someone wants to smoke on my property, nobody is going to stop them. Simple. Don't like it, don't come in.
Goddammit, I'm gonna eat like a pig if I want, and no government's gonna stop me.
What if it isn't the government that takes this initiative? What if, say, it was your employer that fired you for unhealthy eating/smoking/drinking?
Well that's his right, I guess. I could try to get on him for firing me without ample reason, but thats a different issue.
Their reason would be that you were too ample.
If someone wants to smoke on my property, nobody is going to stop them. Simple. Don't like it, don't come in.
That is not the way it works, if you own a store or restaurant.
Why can't you selfish people get it through your heads...IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN.
You've done what you want and consequently screwed up your health, but by God, your betters will not allow you to inflict your degradation on the next generation. They'll raise healthy war fighters in spite of you.
What the hell do you think this is...some kind of free country or something?:lol2:
Why can't you selfish people get it through your heads...IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN.
What happens if/when they find that a little second hand smoke strengthens kids immune systems? Pfizer will probably make an inhaler...
It only works if it's a prescription. ;)
A collegue of my father's told me about a case they had a few days ago. A woman came into the ER with a stroke and a collapsed lung. She was so fat they couldn't put a chest tube in her so they needed to move her into the OR. Picture three docs, all with multiple other trauma cases comming in to deal with, having to shove their hands into her chest halfway to the elbow to hold back her fat so that yet another doctor could get a tube into her chest cavity to release the fluid pressure against her lungs. Not only did she endanger the lives of other people comming in from car accidents and serious injuries by forcing half the doctors in the ER to divert their attention, but if the time delay was the difference between her living or dying all of those doctors are now up for a lawsuit. But of course a jury would never hear that side of the story. We may live in a free country, but other people always have to take responsibility for people like this. I don't care if the 300lb guy in front of me at McDonalds can't have his Big Mac and large shake, I'll probably end up paying his medical bill anyway!!
So what? Pay the bill.
I'm paying an accumulated fortune to supply the local rug rats with toys and stuff I can't afford for myself, in the name of producing well rounded students.
We all pay for stuff we have no say in, no benefit from and sometimes are vehemently opposed to.
Tell the 300 lb guy how you feel....maybe he'll share his fries.:rolleyes:
•Jun 14, 2006 by Walter E. Williams
Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.
It is now a 'slam dunk' fact that smoking AND second hand smoke is deadly. Details posted in the Entertainment Section at
Shock & Gore - TV Ads - Enough is EnoughThe evidence is now "indisputable" that secondhand smoke is an "alarming" public health hazard, responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths among nonsmokers each year, Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona said yesterday.
We have known that cooking fumes are deadly for years as well, but no one wants to outlaw BBQ restaurants.
Again, it is private property, as long as the ventilation allows for OSHA standards in air quality... if you don't like it, don't eat or shop there.
Kelo vs. New London, if nothing else, has shown us that we have a great deal of difficulty defining the terms "public" and "private."
I think market forces rather than law should determine things like this (smoking/non-smoking).
But now I have another reason not to go to Philadelphia.
Again, it is private property, as long as the ventilation allows for OSHA standards in air quality... if you don't like it, don't eat or shop there.
By your reasoning, why should OSHA standards apply? Couldn't market forces determine the acceptible level of air toxicity in the workplace?
That is not my reasoning at all. I was very clear. There is no need to twist my words and meaning in any way.
That is not my reasoning at all. I was very clear.
It would appear not. Even after your admonition I don't see how I twisted anything. If you don't like working in a non-OSHA-compliant workplace, and said workplace is private property, couldn't you find another job?
If I am missing the distinction, please point it out to me.
I was specific in my post, but I will spell-it-out for you, since you need that.
I feel that there need to be certain standards for air quality within reasonable limits.
Saying there can be no smoke means that there can be no more BBQ joints, no more Asian cook to order bars, no more anything with any kind of smoke... I would not be able to burn trees in the groves I used to work in, or cook in any of the restaurants I used to work in... this little OSHA red herring is so transparent.
Smoking sections, cooking areas, clubs and bars had to be OSHA compliant for air quality/ventilation well before any of this came-up.
True, if you want to be in a completely smoke free environment, I agree, you need to find another job.
Absolutely, bar or restaurant that is privately owned, where the owners wish their patrons to be able to smoke on their property would be a stupid choice of places to work, just like if you hate to walk and don't want varicose veins... don't do it genius.
Saying there can be no smoke means that there can be no more BBQ joints, no more Asian cook to order bars, no more anything with any kind of smoke... I would not be able to burn trees in the groves I used to work in, or cook in any of the restaurants I used to work in... this little OSHA red herring is so transparent.
They don't ban "smoke". The type of smoke matters. Different types have different acceptible levels. Burning plastic is different from burning wood, which is different from burning palm oil. There are plenty of things that, if burned in a restauraunt at a similar concentration to the normal griddle smoke, would be considered toxic or carcinogenic, and plenty of things that, if burned at a much higher concentration than the griddle, would be considered fine.
And several types of cooking fumes and smoke have been classified as type one carcinogens. Again, as long as the area meets OSHA standards via ventilation it is no one's damn business what someone allows on their private property.
I guess no one should be allowed to be a fireman now?
It is sick that so many have allowed the busybodies to impose their bullshit on private citizens... your food will be next.
Liberty is a bad word now.
I guess no one should be allowed to be a fireman now?
They have a ton of safety regulations ... no more valiantly dashing into a burning building with no face mask, etc.
The psychoanalytic theorist, Slavoj Žižek, has argued that the contemporary trend of introducing smoking bans in the Western world is part of a much larger cultural trend towards "absolute narcissism", in which it is always assumed "that whenever you are in contact with another person, somehow he or she can infect you".
(
wikipedia)
An interesting perspective.
But me, I think neither smoking nor overeating is a problem which ever will be solved (in any meaningful sense of the word) by way of legislation. Nor gay marriage, nor abortion, nor most of the things that are of late treated as sincerely critical issues.
Before yes vs no, equally intense consideration should be given to whether or not the question is relevant and to whether or not it is our place to decide. Too often, the unasked for answers are no on both counts.
But, how can they be "free" if they are not "free" to inflict their will on all of those around them, even on their own property?
To a busybody, freedom means "I'm free to never be uncomfortable, to never hear speech I don't like, never to have to change the channel or to have to decide whether to watch or not to watch or to decide not to shop or eat somewhere where someone has different values and tastes than I" and nothing else.
It is the freedom to be a bully and it gives them wood.
We have known that cooking fumes are deadly for years as well, ...
BBQ fumes (inside a building) are also dangerous. So why was the other half of that fact (BBQ is also dangerous) intentionally ignored? Classic Rush Limbaugh logic? We don't BBQ inside for same reasons - a threat to innocent lives. However cigarette smokers so hate other's rights as to condom same kind of lies that also claimed the Ozone layer was not being destroyed. Half truths. We now have a fact. Second hand smoke is dangerous - 'slam dunk'. And based in science; not in Karl Rove propaganda.
Any public establishment that allows smoking condemns me - bans me - from that establishment. Smokers literally drive off healthy people only because of drug addiction and total disrespect for others. Would you point an unloaded gun at another? Of course not. So obvious that we don't need laws to ban that act - or at least should not. And yet cigarette smokers are so addicted (and therefore not logical) as to impose their addiction on all others.
You want to drag race? Fine. Go find a track where you do not threaten other's lives. You want to smoke? Fine. Build a structure for your drug addiction. No objection to a cigarette or heroine addiction. Problems start when you impose those additions on others.
You have no right to urinate in a urinal where others are eating. Urine vapors are not deadly. Meanwhile cigarette smokers have no problem doing something far more dangerous than urinating in the same room. It’s called practicing an addictive drug habit with complete disregard for the rights and health of others.
You want lower intelligence? Fine. That's your problem. Keep smoking. However you have no right to impose that penalty on anyone else.
Smokers need to understand what they are. Addicts. They are dangerous - just like BBQing inside the room - at the expense of other innocent people.
But it's YOUR choice to not go there. The government shouldn't be involved at all.
Why stop at places to eat?
Why not people's cars? Of course, this is only if there is a child under age six in the car because, obviously, it is child abuse.
Is it really? Does subjecting a child to second hand smoke constitute child abuse? Is the smoker causing damage to the child's body, much like (or potentially causing more damage than) striking them? If it is abuse, is subjecting others to second hand smoke parallel to commiting assault? Can I go into public and release cyanide vapor for my enjoyment and just assume others around me should go away? People have a choice! I should be able to go into a restaurant and open a capsule of anthrax to the air if I want! Often, I walk down the street and fire my handgun randomly in the air. I have a very high chance of hurting myself in enjoying that hobby, but people around me shouldn't interfere with my freedom despite that I might hurt them, right?
Wheeee! I love sliding down this slope!
Wheeee! I love sliding down this slope!
:D
Hey, shoot all the anthrax you want! As long as you do it on private property, with the permission of the owner, without any people involuntarily present, I sure as hell won't try to stop you.
Hey, shoot all the anthrax you want! As long as you do it on private property, with the permission of the owner, without any people involuntarily present, I sure as hell won't try to stop you.
So, logically, we can ban smoking in all public places since it involves public property and involuntary participants? No more hanging a cigarette out the window of your car or puffing down the street, right?
I think that is a valid law, though I wouldn't support it. My problem is with the government trying to regulate private property.
I think we've probably heaped enough negative energy on the smokers by now. I was riding past a house yesterday and a woman was walking out to her car, having a smoke. We exchanged greetings and she did a weird thing. She palmed her cigarette like she was caught smoking in school or something.
I think we've probably heaped enough negative energy on the smokers by now.
A fundamental difference exists between logic and negative energy. If our social standards are 'you have a right to do anything as long as it does not impose on the rights of others'; then we have only defined public smoking exactly in logical perspectives.
You want to do heroine? Fine. That is only your problem. You want to crucify your kids because you do heroine? Then it becomes everyone else's problem only because fundamental human rights are being violated.
There is no 'heaping of negative energy'. A logical fact denied by some smokers is that public smokers threaten the health of others; violate basic human rights of other people - only because they are addicted.
It is now a 'slam dunk' fact that smokers attack the health of non-smoking victims. She palmed the cigarette maybe because she does not want to be considered an addict. Just like a smoker who waves hands in the air to clear the smoke and says, "Look, I stopped smoking. The air is clear now." Denial rather than logic; as if smoking were not harmful to a smoker and his adjacent victims.
No negative energy. Just hard core, politically incorrect, and blunted stated facts.
TW, if you dont like the guy smoking, walk away.
TW, if you dont like the guy smoking, walk away.
It is a public area. I must leave only because smokers have rights? In fact, I am denied access to or driven out of most bars only because of their addiction. You have it completely backwards. Should I have to leave only because my skin is black? No difference. Both actions are a threat to my safety only because they want to smoke? Walk away? I have been doing that too many decades only because drug addicts have all the rights?
Who gets ill right then because they are smoking? Who has a headache sometimes before I can detect the odor. They have the right to physically attack my body? I should have to walk away from my beer only because they are so intolerant, addicted, and toxic? You have it backwards. I should be tolerant of their intolerance? I should be denied access to any restaurant? Maybe they will sell me food out the back door? Who then is the nigger?
Should I have to leave only because my skin is black?
No, but THEY shouldnt have to leave for being WHITE. If you dont like, or feel uncomfortable around a bunch of smokers, then it's not THEM who's kicking you out, its YOU who's choosing to leave. I don't like people smoking around me, to tell the truth. It gives me a headache too. But if it's not my property, I can't tell him to stop or to go away. I can ask nicely, but if he doesnt want to, I cant make him. I can only leave.
If you dont like, or feel uncomfortable around a bunch of smokers, then it's not THEM who's kicking you out, its YOU who's choosing to leave.
Would you feel the same about people who like to blow air horns?
"...drug addicts have all the rights..." tw?
I think I can say that that is an unqualified NO.
And how come your hanging out in all these bars? Do you have something you'd like to tell us, tw? :D
And how come your hanging out in all these bars? Do you have something you'd like to tell us, tw?
Either its called dinner, or its how I stay away from another addiction called The Cellar, or maybe its is a rare treat soured by cigarette smoke. Maybe I am a part time alcoholic - or just get bouts of thirsty. I don't have numbers so I cannot say for sure. How's that for an answer chock full of perspectives.
How's that for an answer chock full of perspectives.
I like. I'm wondering right now!
It is a public area. I must leave only because smokers have rights? In fact, I am denied access to or driven out of most bars only because of their addiction. You have it completely backwards. Should I have to leave only because my skin is black? No difference. Both actions are a threat to my safety only because they want to smoke? Walk away? I have been doing that too many decades only because drug addicts have all the rights?
Who gets ill right then because they are smoking? Who has a headache sometimes before I can detect the odor. They have the right to physically attack my body? I should have to walk away from my beer only because they are so intolerant, addicted, and toxic? You have it backwards. I should be tolerant of their intolerance? I should be denied access to any restaurant? Maybe they will sell me food out the back door? Who then is the nigger?
A bar or restaurant is private property, not public. If the owner wants smoking allowed, how is it anyone's business?
I smoke a pipe and/or cigar about twice a week, I am not addicted to anything nor am I "toxic", LOL!
A little insight on the
"new study" and "new announcement" by the Surgeon Gen. BTW.
Sucks that part of being free is having to deal with other's acting free as well, some can't deal. Private property should have meaning.
Funny thing is that you know that most establishments would have a non-smoking area... antis just like to bitch.
Some examples of what they are like when the come into the cigar forums.
People who don't belive in freedom... just from this week:
Anti-smoker posts...
From: F~A~R~V~A: The Original Bastard - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 3 2006 6:10 pm
Email: "F~A~R~V~A: The Original Bastard" <flyhighfreeeb...@aol.compost>
Groups: alt.smokers.cigars, alt.pro-wrestling.nwo
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
you are the dumbest damn people alive....why don't you suck on the business
end of a handgun now and save taxpayers the millions they contribute to
medicare because of your stupidity....second hand smoke kills the innocent!
smokers = nazis!
--
"Kick him when he's down, he's easier to reach."
---Scott Hall
#1 ranked poster in RSPW history....
.....NEVER SHIT A SHITTER!
=> UPDATE -- NATIONWIDE SMOKING BAN coming to the U$A !! <= yeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
From: BTR1701 - view profile
Date: Tues, Jun 27 2006 8:42 pm
Email: BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com>
Groups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.smokers, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.smokers.pipes, can.talk.smoking, misc.legal, us.politics
Rating: (1 user)
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
In article <Ebdog.19$3P.45...@news.uswest.net>,
"=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li> wrote:
> UPDATE -New US report calls for workplace smoking ban
> WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Second-hand smoke clearly kills people and
> the only way to control it is to ban all smoking in workplaces, the U.S.
> Surgeon-General said on Tuesday in report that puts the Bush administration
> on the side of smoking restrictions.
I wonder if this would extend to people whose homes are their
workplaces. Could someone like Stephen King, who writes his books in his
home, be told by the government that he's prohibited from smoking there
because it's a "workplace"?
Gee, I hope so. There's nothing like the heavy hand of the government
running even the smallest aspect of one's personal life. Gives me a warm
fuzzy feeling at the thought of the possibility...
=> Lowlife Smokers out in the RAIN ! <= yeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaa VICTORY!
All 3 messages in topic - view as tree
From: => Vox Populi© - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 3 2006 12:41 am
Email: "=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li>
Groups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.smokers, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.smokers.pipes, can.talk.smoking, co.general, co.politics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Bwhahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Just 24 hours after the Colorado statewide ban on
indoor smoking took effect, one can witness groups
of lowlife tobacco-sucking addicts standing OUTSIDE
IN THE RAIN, suck suck suuuuucking on their putrid
cancer sticks -- even in the seediest dirtball dive bars
on Colfax ave, the Esquire, the Squire, etc ... the maggots
are now finally kicked to the filthy gutter with the other
junkies and crackheads, where they belong!
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
VICTORY at LAST !@!
Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space
From: Boomshiki - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 3 2006 12:59 am
Email: "Boomshiki" <RayL...@gmail.com>
Groups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.smokers, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.smokers.pipes, can.talk.smoking, co.general, co.politics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Congradulations.
A prejudice based on habbit is not exactly something to celebrate however.
"=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:Nc1qg.66$g34.8645@news.uswest.net...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Bwhahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
> Just 24 hours after the Colorado statewide ban on
> indoor smoking took effect, one can witness groups
> of lowlife tobacco-sucking addicts standing OUTSIDE
> IN THE RAIN, suck suck suuuuucking on their putrid
> cancer sticks -- even in the seediest dirtball dive bars
> on Colfax ave, the Esquire, the Squire, etc ... the maggots
> are now finally kicked to the filthy gutter with the other
> junkies and crackheads, where they belong!
> Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
> VICTORY at LAST !@!
Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space
From: => Vox Populi© - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 3 2006 1:03 am
Email: "=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li>
Groups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.smokers, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.smokers.pipes, can.talk.smoking, co.general, co.politics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
"Boomshiki" <RayL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uu1qg.36554$B91.35538@edtnps82...
> Congradulations.
> A prejudice based on habbit is not exactly something to celebrate however.
It's ok to be prejudiced against lowlife tobacco addicts ... since
that prejudice is deserved and accurate.
That is the mentality of who we are dealing with.
A bar or restaurant is private property, not public. If the owner wants smoking allowed, how is it anyone's business?
Because a bar or restaurant - a privately owned facility - is a public establshment. Can they fill their bar with combustible foam on the walls and light off fireworks? You think that also is legal or acceptable?
There is nothing acceptable about a toxic drug addict blowing his fumes in another's face. Nothing. The 'slam dunk' now makes it that obvious.
When you light up, do you first ask everyone in the building, individually, for permission? Why not? They must consume your toxins? Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?
People sometimes are so responsible as to ask. I put them downwind. But that is rare from the drug addicts who smoke - and think it is their right to do so anywhere. After fifty plus years of being pushed around and driven out by drug addicts, I have had enough from their intolerance.
As a smoker, remember, you are endorsing an industry that even had a program ongoing to addict five year olds to nicotene. Sort of raised a question of morality. After logically deciding that smoking is not dangerous, did you then apply moral concepts to that conclusion and say addicting five year old is also acceptable?
Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?
Right on. I'm looking forward to getting
these babies banned, too. I can't stand it when I'm outside and forced to inhale their toxins simply for their pleasure.
Because a bar or restaurant - a privately owned facility - is a public establshment. Can they fill their bar with combustible foam on the walls and light off fireworks? You think that also is legal or acceptable?
There is nothing acceptable about a toxic drug addict blowing his fumes in another's face. Nothing. The 'slam dunk' now makes it that obvious.
When you light up, do you first ask everyone in the building, individually, for permission? Why not? They must consume your toxins? Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?
People sometimes are so responsible as to ask. I put them downwind. But that is rare from the drug addicts who smoke - and think it is their right to do so anywhere. After fifty plus years of being pushed around and driven out by drug addicts, I have had enough from their intolerance.
As a smoker, remember, you are endorsing an industry that even had a program ongoing to addict five year olds to nicotene. Sort of raised a question of morality. After logically deciding that smoking is not dangerous, did you then apply moral concepts to that conclusion and say addicting five year old is also acceptable?
Your example has nothing to do with this argument. Again, I am not addicted to tobacco, nor are most that I associate with.
Again, those who run BBQ establishments, nail salons, or any other business with any other type of fume or smoke does not need to ask; because, as long as they meet OSHA air standards, it is their choice and the public decides to shop there or not.
I have always found it very humorous that the antis make it sound as if they have no choice but to be in an establishment, as if they did not know people smoke there or not... very silly. Also, just because I smoke a pipe and cigars does not mean I agree with all tobacco companies tactics any more than I agree with what Coke and Pepsi does with stealing water and polluting from third world nations, GM and Ford with economic manipulations with the same and as an American and patriot, supporting all this nation does. Just dumb.
... does not mean I agree with all tobacco companies tactics any more than I agree with what Coke and Pepsi does with stealing water and polluting from third world nations, GM and Ford with economic manipulations with the same and as an American and patriot, supporting all this nation does. Just dumb.
Which is all irrelevant. "The times they are a changing." 'Slam dunk' facts now confront those who smoke in the face of others - with contempt for others. You want to smoke? Same concepts that ban taking shits in public. It's called simple human respect for others that required laws only because offenders have contempt for other's health. 'Slam dunk' from the Surgeon General is a final blow. You want to run a restaurant that permits smoking? Then make it a private club not open to the public. Then go ahead and put flammable foam on the walls and light up fire works - which is also dangerous and unacceptable in a public establishment - privately or publically owned. There is not reason for non-smokers to be tolerant of drug addicts when those drug addicts are so intolerant of all others.
Ban smoking in all public establishments and no one's rights are violated. None. No one.
Don't be tolerant, you are free not to be, just like I don't like the smell of stores that have tons of potpourri and nail salons... I just don't go in there, even though that is what those people do on their private property and want in their shops.
I have brains enough to do that without being so egomaniacal that I feel that I have to force everyone to do what I like, I guess some don't.
... I don't like the smell of stores that have tons of potpourri and nail salons... I just don't go in there, even though that is what those people do on their private property and want in their shops.
"I don't like" is not relevant. We are talking about attacks to healthy people by intolerant drug addicts. It's not about 'what I like'. It’s about assault. Just like urinating and defecating on public streets is considered an assault on the public's health.
Okay then, tw, take me for example. I get AWFUL migranes from certain smells, sometimes. The nearly visible cloud of perfume and cologne that surrounds the beauty section of most department stores is absolutely awful to me. But do I say that nobody should be allowed to sell or even wear perfume because the smell gives me excruciating headaches? No, I just shop somewhere else or avoid that section of the store.
Okay then, tw, take me for example. I get AWFUL migranes from certain smells, sometimes. The nearly visible cloud of perfume and cologne that surrounds the beauty section of most department stores is absolutely awful to me.
But are those perfumes killing you? No. Big difference. 'Slam dunk' Those cigarette addicts are attacking your body. Not just headaches. It is an attack of your health.
Notice the minute one of those perfumes puts out a toxic odor, that perfume must be immediately eliminated. It's not about what you 'feel'. Its about science and logic. Cigarette smoke is an attack not on how you 'feel'. It is an attack on the public health.
So migranes are less harmful to me than a whiff of smoke?
I lived in Beijing, where the air was more smoke than not, for three years. I dont have lung cancer. I feel no ill effects of the smoke. If three years of breathing it almost constantly didnt hurt me, but two seconds sniffing concentrated perfume gives me a blinding migrane, I'd personally say the perfume is more of a threat to me.
No shit... I hate it when someone sprays that crap on and gets into an elevator. So rude.
Let's outlaw it!!! LOL... sound familiar? "Slam dunk" dur.
The acetone in a nail salon is toxic as are cooking fumes, but no one wants to outlaw those establishments... as they should not.
Because we believe in freedom.
"I don't like" is not relevant. We are talking about attacks to healthy people by intolerant drug addicts. It's not about 'what I like'. It’s about assault. Just like urinating and defecating on public streets is considered an assault on the public's health.
But we are talking about private property, now aren't we?
Again, not all who smoke are addicted, are you having trouble reading this? Seems like you are the one on drugs.
Now I've said this before, but before tw flips out at me for it, I'm going to pre-emptively defend myself (LYK O NO U PREMTVLY DEFNDED U R LYK MENTL MIGET!!!one!1!eleven). I am personally against smoking in general, and if someone was smoking around me I would ask them to stop, probably. I would be one of the people who goes the the OTHER restaurant. But I completely support the right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property.
As would I.
I don't like smoke around my food and don't like cigarette smoke.
But, I like being a fascist much less.
I would be one of the people who goes the the OTHER restaurant. But I completely support the right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property.
In some towns, there is no other restaurant. They all condone smoking. The other restaurant means going to NY or NJ.
Meanwhile, I believe everyone agrees with this: right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property. Not to be confused with a privately owned public establishment.
By the argument being made public nudity should also be legal. Damned be those who don't want to look at certain parts of peoples bodies! After all, it's that person's body not yours and you can choose not to look.
And the fault in the logic about the perfume example is that while both perfume and cigarette smoke extend beyond the user of the product, the vast majority of people exposed to perfume suffer no ill health effects from such exposure. In contrast, the vast majority of people exposed to cigarette smoke do suffer ill health effects.
It's a public health issue.
By the argument being made public nudity should also be legal.
You mean this is illegal?
Spencer Tunick in SwitzerlandI remember reading some time ago, some state probably CA, passed a law you couldn't smoke in your own house in you had a contractor/repairman/employee working there. Anybody heard of that? :confused:
In some towns, there is no other restaurant. They all condone smoking. The other restaurant means going to NY or NJ.
Meanwhile, I believe everyone agrees with this: right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property. Not to be confused with a privately owned public establishment.
"Privately owned
public establishment"? LOL!!!:rolleyes:
Not that funny. They're all over the place. Often called stores, restauraunts, malls, etc.
Which are private property, the owners invite the public to come and buy their products & services. It is not owned by the public in any way. The public comes or does not come at their will, they are not required to in any way.
The next step has begun. Those who think they are entitled to have all think and behave as they do step-it-up even to the point of making-up science.
Trans Fat Lawsuit Against KFC Based on Thin ScienceTrans Fat Lawsuit Against KFC Based on Thin ScienceWhich are private property, the owners invite the public to come and buy their products & services. It is not owned by the public in any way. The public comes or does not come at their will, they are not required to in any way.
I'm not certain this matters much, anyway, as the issue of smoking in private businesses could be simply rolled in under public health code, which is where I think such laws would reside, anyway.
Sure, OSHA air quality applies... as long as the air quality and ventilation allows for it, I don't see what the issue is.
Sure, OSHA air quality applies...
And any other air quality laws that happen to be passed, such as anti-smoking laws.
Wrong, OSHA enforces EPA standards for associates health, levels that are deemed unsafe for prolonged exposure. If you excluded all carcinogens that would include closing all kitchens, paint stores, nail salons, grills and any other business that puts anything into the air. It is about the associates, not the public.
That's why they're separate laws. But both laws apply.
The law imposing the publics wishes upon privates property owner's rights should not, however.
Nope, one is about regulating the environment of workers. The other is just fascist individuals who want to force others to be like them.
The two have nothing to do with each other.
Because with proper ventilation people smoking in an establishment are well within OSHA standards. Always have been.
One regulates the environment of workers, one regulates the environment of customers (and workers). Both impose a public interest onto private property.
So the public needs different air standards? Be specific on what you mean by that and how you come to this conclusion.
No, the employees can't smoke either.
You misunderstood completely, but clearly showed how you want to rule everyone else's lives.
You just keep trying to make distinctions that don't exist. OSHA laws and anti-smoking laws both make impositions on private property owners' rights for the benefit of people who could go somewhere else. So do handicap-accessibility laws. So do USDA meat inspection guidelines. Also the FDA drug approval process. They all have the same legal justifications. Many people disagree with those justifications, and that is a valid position (though I hope it doesn't become a majority opinion), but I don't see any way to say OSHA is "regulating the environment of workers" and that's OK, while anti-smoking laws regulate the environment of workers (and also customers) and that's "fascist individuals who want to force others to be like them".
Your issue seems to be with the scientific justification, not the legal one.
Again, incorrect. I agree there must be a safe work environment.
At the point where we agree on the level of save air quality, that is it. End of story.
The rest is up to the property owner. The anti-smoking laws have nothing to so with safe environments, ventilation and reason they have to do with a group imposing their personal tastes on everyone else.
The contradiction I've seen in business and law is what confuses me in this matter. The "free market" solution should have worked something like this: people eat where they want at various establishments. Some of those places permit smoking, some allow it on certain portions of their property, and others do not permit it altogether. People, over time, select which places they want to go to and some select them based upon the smoking/some smoking/no smoking. Whatever people like, people pick, the end.
What is strange about this is that, here in Florida, few people selected places based upon smoking permission. Chains that allowed smoking didn't see non-smokers go elsewhere and places that prohibited it saw smokers still walk through their doors time and time again. Based on where business went and the places people went, you'd swear no one gave a big shit about smoking in private businesses.
...and then the restaurant ban came up for a vote. Not only did it pass, it passed
hugely. Based on the vote, clearly people did not want smoking in restaurants. Not only did they desire a ban, they wanted it so badly they
amended the state constitution. (Noo... this isn't an abuse of founding state documents, is it? Just like
protecting the rights of pigs wasn't, either, but that is a different story!)
The backlash? I spoke with the owner of a local bar shortly after the law went into effect and she said business was miserable -- the place was dead quiet. (Bars are exempt under the law, but this "bar" sold enough food that it qualified as a restaurant and was forced to ban smoking.) She feared her drinking regulars would never return, the business would fail, and that the money, logically, would go to "true" bars where her thirsty customers could puff away to their hearts' content and still get their drink.
Weeks later, a return visit and everything was back to normal. Regulars returned, business resumed, etc, and the owner commented two weeks was all it took. Did the smokers take their drinking habits to where they could also smoke? Nope, they simply step outside.
My problem: if smoking was a big health hazard and people hated it so much as to vote for it, why didn't places that permitted smoking see a loss in money and cave in to business demands by banning it themselves? Why did people that hated smoking in restaurants continue to eat at the establishments that permitted it? Why didn't the magical free market solution reflect the vote and popular opinion?
My other problem: if the smoking ban is a big deal, why didn't smokers take their business to "true bars" or stay at home? Why did businesses not suffer anything beyond the temporary dip?
To make matters even stranger, plenty of exempt businesses used the ban as an
excuse to prohibit smoking on their property. Tampa Lanes, a bowling alley, switched on the same date as when the ban went into effect. So did several nightclubs in the area. Guess what? Smokers
still go to these establishments, sometimes selecting them over places that continue to permit smoking.
What the hell?
Why do they still go there? Because, get this - Contrary to tw's ramblings, not all smokers are chain-smoking, kill-a-man-for-his-camels nutjobs. Some can put away their lighters long enough to bowl a round or watch a girl take her clothes off or get a good plate of fries.
Same reason I don't grab a pack of lucky strikes and a zippo every time i walk into an establishment that DOES allow smoking.
The bar I go to allows me to smoke my pipe and I do. I live in FL. An unconstitutional law is not a law, ignoring it is your responsibility.
The anti-smoking laws have nothing to so with safe environments,
So you disagree with the scientific justification, not the legal one.
I find it a little odd that tw can't find a smoke free eatery in the Philly area. I went to a smoke free place,
The Summerhouse Grill in tiny little Montrose, PA last weekend. (yummy btw)
The little bars around here are booming because New York has chased a percentage of their their smokers South. As far as voting away smoking, the motivated voters are the mobilized anti-smokers then you add in the warm fuzzy crowd who want to improve their neighbors... My recent trip to the ER, which is in New York, involved walking around a knot of tobacco fiend health care workers who've been pushed out on the sidewalk. As addicts they should probably invoke ADA and get a ventilated room ;)
I saw a funny cartoon in The Spectator on the subject of smoking ( all the cartoons are funny in The Spectator ... )
Two tramps are sitting on a park bench . One is smoking , and the other is swigging at his bottle of methylated spirits . The meths tramp is frowning and berating the other for ruining his epicurean pleasure .
That just about sums the subject up for me .
Contrary to tw's ramblings, not all smokers are chain-smoking, kill-a-man-for-his-camels nutjobs. Some can put away their lighters long enough to bowl a round or watch a girl take her clothes off or get a good plate of fries.
I never defined smokers as such. You have simply uses your emotional interpretation to pervert what I posted. And yes, all smokers can put away their lighters long enough to bowl. Problem is that a self serving minority insist it is their right to smoke anywhere - and deny that all laws against smoking are because smokers are so toxic to healthy people.
Laws are created when a group is so anti-social as to make those laws necessary. There would be no anti-smoking laws is these smokers conformed to the interests of all. But instead they insist their rights are more important - making those laws necessary.
I find it a little odd that tw can't find a smoke free eatery in the Philly area.
When I go into any eatery, I expect it to be urine and smoke free. I expect only addicts to have to do the searching - or keep their lighters in their pockets.
Well is documented is what happens when smoking is banned. Business increases - typically 5% or more. These numbers have been well doumented in both CA and NYC.
Maybe that increase is people eating and drinking more because they can't smoke. :lol:
Am I allowed to open a restaurant and allow *only* smokers to come in? I suspect not, somehow. Why, then, am I able to allow *only* nonsmokers in my own private property?
Free choice is the issue. If there is a market for it (and I know tw is an advocate of Free Market concept), then business catering only to nonsmokers will proliferate and thrive, right? So what's the problem?
When I go into any eatery, I expect it to be urine and smoke free.
Sir, as an aside, I should notify you that you are possibly missing out on
the best food found in hole-in-the-wall joints if you avoid places like that.
Am I allowed to open a restaurant and allow *only* smokers to come in? I suspect not, somehow. Why, then, am I able to allow *only* nonsmokers in my own private property?
To open an establishment for *only* smokers - principle was always established. The establishment is a private club - not open to the public.
Once when smokers were forced to be responsible, there were special clubs just for drug addicts. Smoking Clubs. Also these drug addicts did not just throw their drug waste upon the roads and sidewalks. Times changes. Suddenly smokers now routinely throw their waste anywhere they want - because smokers are somehow superior to all others. Smokers can even dispose of burning litter anywhere they want? Yes, smokers are somehow exempt even from litter laws. Again an example of how smokers somehow assume they have superior rights.
There exists private and publically owned establishments. AND there are establishments open to the public and not open to the public (private clubs) - that can be private or public establishments. Obviously, of those four categories, a publically owned facility would not be a private club. The point is not just two categories - public and private. There are four categories.
If that establishment is open to public, then it must not impose body odor of drug addicts to other members of the public. Finally we have decided that smokers are not special people. These drug addicts must conform to public standards. They may not attack others with toxic wastes - their drug habit. Smokers have the same rights as all others - which means they simply need not smoke except where personal permission is obtained from everyone who is in and would be in that room. That is called fair; the principles upon which democracy was recreated.
That's where we disagree, tw. If it's private it's private. If I own a restaurant, it is MY property, and I get to be the sole judge of who may come in. If I open it to the public, it's still MY property, and I'm STILL deciding who can and cant come in, but the decision is that anyone can. Thats the only difference.
What is your position on OSHA, health inspections, and handicap accessibility on your private property?
I would agree to them all weather I had to or not, because I can completely see the point.
I personally probably WOULDN'T allow smoking in my restaurant, I just don't think that decision should rest with the government.
But do you agree with the ones I menioned being mandatory?
Well none of those inconvenience anybody at all by being enforced, so I guess I dont have a problem with them.
My recent trip to the ER, which is in New York, involved walking around a knot of tobacco fiend health care workers who've been pushed out on the sidewalk. As addicts they should probably invoke ADA and get a ventilated room
I don't know if the ADA was invoked, but at Children's Hospital where I volunteer, there are ventilated rooms reserved for smoking. They're called Butt-Huts. True story.
Well none of those inconvenience anybody at all by being enforced, so I guess I dont have a problem with them.
Except the owner of the establishment, who has to pay for the extra toilet stalls, and the wheelchair ramps, and the safety equipment in the kitchens.
Well none of those inconvenience anybody at all by being enforced, so I guess I dont have a problem with them.
They certainly do! It costs a
lot of money to be in compliance with all of the various regulations of public accomodations, especially restaurants. Comparatively, a smoking ban is extremely easy for the property owner - put up a few signs, and toss the ashtrays.
There are plenty of other laws and restrictions we put on what restaurant owners can do in their establishments. Remember when they wouldn't allow blacks in? What if an owner decides that his business will increase if he doesn't serve mexicans? We decide for him who he serves.