Smoking Ban

I have some lead based toys to sell. That's cool isn't it?

Is that in response to someone in particular?

[Robin Garr]

I have some lead based toys to sell. That's cool isn't it?

Or a restaurant with a flatulence and no-flatulence section? If I don't mind your smoke, you shouldn't mind my ... well, you know.

I have some lead based toys to sell. That's cool isn't it?

Or a restaurant with a flatulence and no-flatulence section? If I don't mind your smoke, you shouldn't mind my ... well, you know.

How about a restaurant with a no arsenic, nickel, chromium, cadmium, lead, polonium-210, vinyl chloride, formaldehyde, benz(a)anthrecene, benzo(b)fouoranthene, benzo(j)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthrecene, dibenzo(a, l)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, 5-methylchrysene, quinoline, dibenz(a,h)acridine, 7H-dibenzo(c,g)carbazole, N-nitrosodiethylamine, (or my personal favorite) benzene section? Nothing like inhaling a by-product of rocket fuel to make me appreciate a meal.

What ever happened to the classic defination of a democracy: Majority rule, tempered by minority rights?

I have some lead based toys to sell. That's cool isn't it?

Or a restaurant with a flatulence and no-flatulence section? If I don't mind your smoke, you shouldn't mind my ... well, you know.

How about a restaurant with a no arsenic, nickel, chromium, cadmium, lead, polonium-210, vinyl chloride, formaldehyde, benz(a)anthrecene, benzo(b)fouoranthene, benzo(j)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthrecene, dibenzo(a, l)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, 5-methylchrysene, quinoline, dibenz(a,h)acridine, 7H-dibenzo(c,g)carbazole, N-nitrosodiethylamine, (or my personal favorite) benzene section? Nothing like inhaling a by-product of rocket fuel to make me appreciate a meal.

Hear hear!

No, not a reference to anybody in particular. Just a sarcastic note on my part. My point being that as a rule, folks are not allowed to willy nilly go about knowingly harming others. It always surprises me when we expect certain publicly harmful activities to be regulated but others not.

I agree with Carla. I think the whole idea of "smokers' rights" is hogwash, and I say this as someone who has been known to occasionally enjoy a cigarette when she goes out drinking. I have never, ever thought that my "right" to smoke trumped anyone else's right to breathe clean, non-carcinogenic air, and I really don't understand the mindset of people who think this way. There's a whole host of dangerous and/or annoying things I can do in my own home that I can't - and don't expect to be able to - inflict on people in public. Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

I agree with Carla. I think the whole idea of "smokers' rights" is hogwash, and I say this as someone who has been known to occasionally enjoy a cigarette when she goes out drinking. I have never, ever thought that my "right" to smoke trumped anyone else's right to breathe clean, non-carcinogenic air, and I really don't understand the mindset of people who think this way. There's a whole host of dangerous and/or annoying things I can do in my own home that I can't - and don't expect to be able to - inflict on people in public. Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

You would think it would be common sense.! Well said Carla and Erin. Ed your descriptions are the brilliant.

No, not a reference to anybody in particular. Just a sarcastic note on my part. My point being that as a rule, folks are not allowed to willy nilly go about knowingly harming others. It always surprises me when we expect certain publicly harmful activities to be regulated but others not.

Well, no they aren't, but at the same time people aren't allowed to walk up to someone performing a perfectly legal activity and claim protection under the law either. At most I feel the public should be reasonably warned that there are activities on the premises that may be harmful to you, so the public can make that decision for themselves.

Look, I don't give a fig about so called smoker's rights either. I've never enjoyed the stale smoke smell remaining on my coat for weeks after a single night in a club. I believe in human rights and self determination. I believe in simple solutions as an alternative to regulation. If you know there is smoking there, don't go. If you know there is smoking there, don't take a job there. I've made both choices for myself several times.

[Robin Garr]

I believe in simple solutions as an alternative to regulation.

I've asked this question repeatedly and have yet to hear a coherent answer from anybody on the <i>laissez faire</i> side: Do you feel the same way about restaurant sanitation inspection or fire codes? Do you oppose laws barring racial segregation or denying women entry to the bar?

After all, if a restaurant chooses to run an unsanitary kitchen, people will get sick and won't return, so the free market will soon put the nasty place out of business. No need for regulation there!

I believe in simple solutions as an alternative to regulation.

I've asked this question repeatedly and have yet to hear a coherent answer from anybody on the <i>laissez faire</i> side: Do you feel the same way about restaurant sanitation inspection or fire codes? Do you oppose laws barring racial segregation or denying women entry to the bar?

After all, if a restaurant chooses to run an unsanitary kitchen, people will get sick and won't return, so the free market will soon put the nasty place out of business. No need for regulation there!

It is obvious given the choice, some people will not do the moral or correct thing. That is why we need laws and regulations.

Anytime there is a need to protect people from potential health hazards such as fire, unsanitary food ( we don't need to get people sick before we don't go back) or smoking, regulations are needed. They are also needed in moral situations such as Women's, children and racial rights.

Until people can just do the right thing, this is how it needs to be handled.

Smoking is one of those things that have been proven to harm people other than the perpetrators and at least some smokers don't seem to care whether or not anyone else is effected.

A perfect reason to implement a regulation or law. That is the line.

I am not a smoker and frankly hate the smell of cigarette smoke and have allegies related to second hand smoke, but I am opposed to Government restrictions on civil rights. Give them and inch and they will take a mile. A friend of mine that smokes was recently at a hospital on the East End. They went to their car to smoke a cigarette. The "smoke" police told them they could finish that one, but if they were caught again their car would be impounded. I applaud all non smoking restaurants and that is where I prefer to dine, but in restaurants outside of the metro when there is simply a non smoking sections, I am okay with that too.

I agree with the question that Robin posted, how far do we want this to go? How much restriction? Where do you draw the line?

[quote="Aaron Newton"][quote="carla griffin"]No, not a reference to anybody in particular. Just a sarcastic note on my part. My point being that as a rule, folks are not allowed to willy nilly go about knowingly harming others. It always surprises me when we expect certain publicly harmful activities to be regulated but others not.[/quote]

Well, no they aren't, but at the same time people aren't allowed to walk up to someone performing a perfectly legal activity and claim protection under the law either. At most I feel the public should be reasonably warned that there are activities on the premises that may be harmful to you, so the public can make that decision for themselves.

Look, I don't give a fig about so called smoker's rights either. I've never enjoyed the stale smoke smell remaining on my coat for weeks after a single night in a club. I believe in human rights and self determination. I believe in simple solutions as an alternative to regulation. If you know there is smoking there, don't go. If you know there is smoking there, don't take a job there. I've made both choices for myself several times.[/quote]

In just a couple of sentences you stated the position that I wasn't able to clearly define in several dozen paragraphs. "I believe in human rights and self determination"... and "I believe in simple solutions as an alternative to regulations."

The non-smokers' side of the issue is crystal clear... no one should have the right to pollute our air and ruin our health, or something to that effect. That's absolutely, perfectly understandable and reasonable. And the smokers basically want a right to smoke because it's a legal activity. But certain philosophical aspects of the issue are apparently disregarded or dismissed as moot points by many people supporting the ban. Those aspects simply don't carry any weight in their concept of the issue.

For my part, it's those philosophical aspects that carry the most weight. Maybe that's because I think government has a tendency to make a mess of things, and because regulations often breed more regulations.

Perhaps before I'm labeled an anarchist, I should define that position... simply put, I believe that self determination is better than government determination. Regulation is primarily anti-self determination.

And perhaps before I'm labeled as being against every regulation that protects workers, the disabled, etc., I should also define that position... some regulations are unquestionably essential. On the other hand, many regulations are nothing more than guidelines where common sense could serve exactly the same purpose.

As far as I'm concerned, the fewer government controls on my decisions and my choices -- on my self determination -- the more content I can be.

That's just my opinion, of course... I'll probably never know if it's true or not.

I agree that government can go way too far. When the government started telling us who we can marry and how we are supposed to pray, I started seeing the point of the libertarians.

But, I still believe that government plays an important role by regulating businesses. There was a time when the market was the only control on businesses. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair gives a good account of how that worked out. (hint: not so good)

I am not a smoker and frankly hate the smell of cigarette smoke and have allegies related to second hand smoke, but I am opposed to Government restrictions on civil rights. Give them and inch and they will take a mile. A friend of mine that smokes was recently at a hospital on the East End. They went to their car to smoke a cigarette. The "smoke" police told them they could finish that one, but if they were caught again their car would be impounded. I applaud all non smoking restaurants and that is where I prefer to dine, but in restaurants outside of the metro when there is simply a non smoking sections, I am okay with that too.

I agree with the question that Robin posted, how far do we want this to go? How much restriction? Where do you draw the line?

Smoking is not a civil right.