There has been a proposed smoking ban in the state of Michigan, I've heard that it passed. I am not a smoker. Everywhere I read, smokers complain about their freedom to smoke wherever they want to and how the smoking ban is violating their freedom. I personally find this smoking ban beneficial. The smoker's "freedom" violates the nonsmokers freedom to BREATHE. I like to walk around a lot, and I breathe in the disgusting stench of cigarette smoke almost everywhere I go. I try to eat peacefully at restaurants, but I don't have much of an appetite because I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. I try to walk home from school, and go on a different road because there are hundreds of underclassmen in high school smoking and I don't want to inhale the smoke. I know that I'm making it sound like it, but I don't think smokers are horrible people who are out to kill everybody, I just think that their ignorant choices affect not only theirs, but everybody else's health. There are reasons we choose not to smoke. Please, next time you choose to light up in public, think of the people with asthma, the small children, and the other people who choose not to smoke.
Smoking Ban
By fireconsumemysoul - Posted on May 12th, 2008
Despite the amount of information 'out there' and all of the studies that 'prove it' . . . much of the anti-smoking stuff out there is either outright lie or manipulation of truth for political agenda.
Smoking bans are not about health, but about freedom. That's how socialism works.
Smoking bans are not about health, but about freedom. That's how socialism works.
If it's socialist to allow non-smokers to not have to subject themselves to cigarette smoke whenever they leave their house, then I'd rather be socialist.
Here's a resource you might be interested in, the Ohio branch of the Tobbaco Public Policy Center.
I would be interested to see what it is, exactly, that you consider "lies and manipulation" regarding the anti-smoking stuff.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
That the government tells a person where they can and cannot smoke, that is encroachment upon personal freedom.
If a business wants to have no smoking, they post signs and kick out anyone who wants to smoke.
The Businesses are not given a say in this as the government has stepped in and demanded smoking bans.
That is the socialist bend to the anti-smoking agenda. You or I are unable to make the decision on our own, the government has stepped in and done the thinking for us.
If you want to see the 'lies and manipulation' of the anti-smoking agenda, just watch the 'truth.com' commercials ... that's where it is. They distort truth for the sake of making tobacco companies look evil.
The truth is, a bunch of lawyers saw a chance to get rich for life, so they got together and sued tobacco companies for people buying and using their products.
Imagine if there was an automobile version? How many die from automobiles each year?
If it is the tobacco companies' fault for people smoking and risking death, why is it not the automanufacturers' fault for people driving and risking death?
And, the million dollar question: Why is it the role of the government, in your opinion, to restrict rights? Why is it not up to the ones who run the businesses?
Thank you for stating this, if you would not have I would have only it probably would have been a lot less clear.
I disagree with the role of the government is to restrict rights. I agree strongly with Thoreau that a government should be used as an expedient, no more, no less.
Why is it the role of the government, in your opinion, to restrict rights?
As with the legitimate cases that the government steps in and takes away rights, it's because the people they're taking away rights from are infringing on other rights. Usually, that lands a person in jail or house arrest. It is the role of the government to restrict rights on those that are infringing on others' rights.
When people smoke around people they know choose not to smoke (say, for example, a restaurant with a smoking and non-smoking section that's not physically and completely divided), in an area that is outside of an area where either have control (ie - a public building), the smoker is infringing on the non-smoker's right to choose not to smoke (by forcing them to inhale second-hand smoke).
If it is the tobacco companies' fault for people smoking and risking death, why is it not the automanufacturers' fault for people driving and risking death?
Risking death and being a direct cause of death when used as intended are two different things.
The Tobacco Companies themselves reported a list of 599 additives in cigarettes, which, when burned produce 4000 compounds and 43 known carcinogens. 43 substances that are known to cause cancer, in a product that is made to be burned and the smoke inhaled.
If you want to see the 'lies and manipulation' of the anti-smoking agenda, just watch the 'truth.com' commercials
And again, I ask, what, exactly, are these lies you speak of? If anyone is lying, it's the tobacco companies, considering 4 out of 5 of them still denied, as of 2002, that smoking causes heart and lung-related diseases, despite the fact that it not only causes disease, but death in 20% of the US population. It has also been determined the single most preventable cause of premature death since 1964.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
1.) No one forces the nonsmoker to be there.
2.) The owners of the restaurant have set that up. Your beef should be with the restaurant owner, not calling for the government to ban smoking there.
3.) It isn't the government's job to determine the seating placement of a restaurant.
That doesn't address the question I asked. No one forces a smoker to smoke. They choose to. People still use Sweet & Low, and that has been known to cause cancer. Where is the great Sweet & Low lawsuit?
None of that, of course, is relevant to banning smoking. None of that, of course, is relevant to forcing your rights upon others by calling for the government to ban their ability to do as they wish.
Just let me know when you're free to appear in court for that lawsuit where I get to sue your family for the pollutants your cars spew into the air.
Just let me know when you're free to appear in court for that lawsuit where I get to sue your family for the pollutants your cars spew into the air.
Like I stated in response to your other comment. Feel free to when I run my car in your house or the restaurant you want to eat at.
While I do wish that people couldn't smoke in their cars, either, I'm more practical than that and wouldn't expect the government to ban that too. It's called wishful thinking (which I believe isn't unwarranted considering cigarette smoke gives me headaches and makes me physically ill).
In regards to the rest of your responses, it seems to me, then, that you are being rather vague. Or it could just be me getting burnt out from real life stuff. Either way, would you please clarify how you feel my answer did not address your questions?
Edit - Also in regards to your car comment, I'm an advocate of cleaner, more efficient alternative fuel sources (both for cars and manufacturing-level businesses).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Ah, but the pollution from your car spreads through the air and makes it into every restaurant and house.
That smoking is bad for you is basic. My father is 69 years old and it was widely known when he was a kid that smoking was bad for you. People still did it.
That the response is "Congress oughtta make a law...." shows how far to the left we are sliding. It is NOT the job of the government to tell people when and where they are allowed to smoke. If a restaurant allows smoking, your beef is with the restaurant.
Or, as this is America, make your OWN restaurant that does not allow smoking.
No, instead, the push is to have the government do the thinking for us.
It is just laziness and selfishness. "This place would be great if not for those smokers. I don't care if they have a right to be here, my nonexistant right to have everything the way I want it all the time trumps their freedom to smoke. If I go somewhere that they are, they shouldn't be there!"
Ah, but the pollution from your car spreads through the air and makes it into every restaurant and house.
And again, I'm an advocate of alternative fuel not only for cars but for manufacturing level companies.
That the response is "Congress oughtta make a law...." shows how far to the left we are sliding.
Do I really need to remind you about our fight to preserve the Second Amendment? The cigarette thing, in my opinion, should be the least of our worries.
If a restaurant allows smoking, your beef is with the restaurant.
Actually, wouldn't the beef be with the cigarette companies themselves, since they are the ultimate source of such matters?
It is just laziness and selfishness. "This place would be great if not for those smokers. I don't care if they have a right to be here, my nonexistant right to have everything the way I want it all the time trumps their freedom to smoke. If I go somewhere that they are, they shouldn't be there!"
So...your claims to have the "right" to smoke where ever you damn well please, when the very act of doing so infringes on other people's rights to choose not to engage in such activities trumps all? It's the same concept you're shunning me for. The right of one, regardless of side, infringes on the right of another.
And for the record, I did not vote for the bans in either state that I've lived in. Not only was I not old enough to anyway, but I was also not a resident of the state at the time they passed such laws. Nor would I have voted for them given the chance. However, I am rather happy that it has passed because this is an issue of not only the health of those that engage in the activity of smoking, but anyone and everyone affected by it, including children.
I did, however, grow up with parents who smoked and chewed and have suffered because of it. While the chew is simply more of a disgusting inconvenience (he leaves his spit cups around), the smoking has left me with asthma. So yes, I have an issue with smokers, because it does not only affect them.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
And again, I'm an advocate of alternative fuel not only for cars but for manufacturing level companies.
Then do you also support alternative tobacco use? Perhaps restaurants could allow people to use chew?
Do I really need to remind you about our fight to preserve the Second Amendment? The cigarette thing, in my opinion, should be the least of our worries.
Do you need to remind ME about it? Heh. No. I would, however, contend that both are actually different battles in the same war for freedom from Government Oppression.
Actually, wouldn't the beef be with the cigarette companies themselves, since they are the ultimate source of such matters?
If you oppose all smoking everywhere at all times, then yes. But you said that you really don't mind if people smoke in their homes as long as you can't smell it. In which case, your beef is with the owner of that restaurant for allowing smoking.
So...your claims to have the "right" to smoke where ever you damn well please, when the very act of doing so infringes on other people's rights to choose not to engage in such activities trumps all? It's the same concept you're shunning me for. The right of one, regardless of side, infringes on the right of another.
Close, but no cigar (smoking puns, ha!). No one has a right to smoke anywhere they choose. However, if the business owner has granted the ability to smoke (by having a smoking section or by just outright allowing it), then someone can.
And yes, if a business owner has granted the ability to smoke, that trumps your perceived right to not want any smoking because, once again, it is not your restaurant.
Instead, people hate smoking so much that they'll side with 'big government' people, socialists, who would have the government do any thinking and take rights from you for your health.
However, I am rather happy that it has passed because this is an issue of not only the health of those that engage in the activity of smoking, but anyone and everyone affected by it, including children.
'for the children' is often used by people wanting to take away your rights. Never trust someone who wants to pass a law for the children as the children are generally the LAST thing on their minds.
I am happy when someone doesn't smoke. I am very UNHAPPY when it is by government mandate.
So yes, I have an issue with smokers, because it does not only affect them.
Revenge is a horrible reason to take away rights.
Then do you also support alternative tobacco use?
Considering that the root of my problem actually has more to do with the garbage that is the 600 different additives, I wouldn't be closed to smoking quite as much if it was actually...you know....tobacco (which, for all intents and purposes, it's not anymore). While it's still smoke and carbon monoxide that you're breathing in and letting off, it's not nearly as bad. It does still, however, affect anyone around and I would still object to the use of it in indoor public places (yes, we've gone over the whole "go somewhere else" crap a dozen times, just stop with that already), but I don't think I'd be bothered as much by outdoor use.
Never trust someone who wants to pass a law for the children as the children are generally the LAST thing on their minds.
I agree. However, childhood ailments have increased in both number and severity in the past couple of decades. While I attribute at least part of that to overdiagnosing, that still leaves a good amount of ailments, including asthma, that didn't used to be there. So whether or not I would actually vote for someone who wants to pass laws "for the children," it doesn't necessarily mean that I won't myself think of my own children and children in general when I consider voting for or against something (or making any decision for that matter), because it is our children that will have to deal with consequences.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Ohio has a similar smoking ban. No one can smoke in any public building (restaurants included, which means no more "smoking or non?" thankfully), and have to be a certain distance from the buildings (ie - not right outside the door). We get people that complain here, too. I've seen bumper stickers that say things like "at least I can still smoke in my car," though sometimes I wish smoking in cars was banned, too, because it comes through the vents in my car and I have to deal with the choice they made.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Where, then, can people smoke?
Can't smoke in public, that leaves 'private'
That's your car and your home.
You said you wish they banned it from cars. There are homeowners associations that ban it from homes.
I don't care if people smoke in their homes. That's their choice. If I go to their house, then I'm putting myself in that situation. That's my choice.
However, it is not my choice to deal with someone else's cigarette smoke when I'm in my own car, stopped at a stop light, on my way to work.
Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, remember.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, remember.
Your scenarios don't portray this line of reasoning at all. It's more like diving at someone's idle fist.
Don't you have the same choice not to go to restaurants that allow smoking? Don't you have to ability to roll up your window?
Just because your idea of convenience doesn't match someone else's doesn't mean that yours trumps theirs just because you happen to be lazy, too.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Vents, not open windows. If it was a matter of me having the window open, that'd be a different matter, in which case your retort would be justified. However, I wasn't even talking about having windows rolled down.
Don't you have the same choice not to go to restaurants that allow smoking?
I don't know about where you live, but where I've lived, before the bans, every restaurant had a smoking section. It's worse for business to not have a smoking section when they are allowed than allowing smokers to smoke because more people are willing to just "deal with it" than actually do anything.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Once again, if your complaint is that restaurants are smokier than you want.... don't go.
Why is it the job of the government to enforce your will upon restaurant or bar owners?
if they didn't want a smoking section, they wouldn't have one.
They chose to, and you think that your desire to get rid of smoking ought to trump their choices for their own business?
Why do you get to make that choice?
Once again, if your complaint is that restaurants are smokier than you want.... don't go.
So...the rights of those that smoke, who's very act of smoking (specifically in a confined area, such as a building) infringes on the non-smoker's right to enjoy a meal without choking on the smoke the others are putting out, take precedence?
I agree that it should be up to the business. However, I also agree with the intent of the law as a method to help improve public health by regulating an unnecessary action that is a direct cause of death not only in the people who take part in said activity, but those who are also affected by said activity, whether voluntarily or not.
Allowing businesses to choose whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments has resulted in the vast majority (if not all) of businesses allowing smoking, which in turn, directly subjects all customers (and employees) to cigarette smoke. Businesses, when it comes down to it, only really care about the bottom line. Therefore, they determined that it's better money to allow smokers and have the non-smokers "deal with it" (and for good reason, money-wise, over 20% of the population smokes). Evidently, some people thought this was a problem that the state governments should consider handling.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Once again, it is up to the business owner to decide that. No one has forced you to go to that restaurant. You CHOOSE to go there, which means that you need to take accountability and responsibility for what you encounter there.
Go elsewhere. You don't have a right to go to a restaurant that trumps anyone else's right to go there, and your smoking preference doesn't trump theirs. The business owner is the one to decide who can sit where and if someone can smoke, not you.
Don't like it? Make your own nonsmoking business.
However, I also agree with the intent of the law as a method to help improve public health by regulating an unnecessary action that is a direct cause of death not only in the people who take part in said activity, but those who are also affected by said activity, whether voluntarily or not.
Then ban driving. Cars are made KNOWING that accidents kill. People who aren't even in cars die from hit and runs. Think of all the animals that are run over every year. And, once again, the pollution from the car that trumps any cig.
But.... you like cars.
Allowing businesses to choose whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments has resulted in the vast majority (if not all) of businesses allowing smoking, which in turn, directly subjects all customers (and employees) to cigarette smoke.
Darn those businesses! *Shakes fist* Making a decision that you don't like. How dare they?!
heh.
You don't have a moral right (or any other kind of right) to tell someone else what they can do with their business. Make your own.
Therefore, they determined that it's better money to allow smokers and have the non-smokers "deal with it" (and for good reason, money-wise, over 20% of the population smokes).
Go elsewhere. That's how you affect their bottom line. Basic Economics.
Evidently, some people thought this was a problem that the state governments should consider handling.
Yes, socialists. And you're buying into it.
Remember, Communist China didn't take over by force. They came in and gave out free food and help while they took away firearms, until they had enough support to gain control. Then all of the other rights went out the window.
The free market can solve these problems, and here's how it does it:
Don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. Instead, make your own and promote it as a 'smoke free' restaurant.
Instead, people have called on the government (who is always willing to take more power) to force their will upon others, so that no one has a free choice now.
One less freedom.
Thanks.
Then ban driving. Cars are made KNOWING that accidents kill.
Using a car the way it was intended to be used is not a direct link to any deaths.
However, cigarettes are the single leading cause of premature death when used as intended.
Your argument makes just as much sense as those used by gun control advocates. I also find it ironic that you're also pro-life, yet still insist on fighting for people's rights and freedoms.
But.... you like cars.
Actually, not really. I consider them a necessary evil because I don't have the option of alternative methods of transportation where I live.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Before the smoking bans in my state, plenty of restaurants started eliminating their smoking sections as a response to people demanding them do so. However, businesses where it was expected (and even drew high revenue like diners) didn't. Then the state issued the smoking ban and now my friends can't go to a diner at 4 in the morning for coffee and cigarettes.
It's really annoying that people go to the government first for what is really a problem with business.
Also, you really notice cigarette smoke in your car? I know I don't.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
"Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, remember."
Yet your desire to infringe on the right of a smoker has no limits.
Edit:
Can I sue you because driving your car spits out pollutants that I breathe in?
Can I sue you because driving your car spits out pollutants that I breathe in?
When I start driving my car in your house or other area where the exhaust is concentrated.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
But your complaint is that while in your car, you breathe in smoke from people in other cars.
If that is a valid complaint, which you would assert, then it is equally (if not more) valid to suggest that the pollutants in your family's (or your) car are breathed by anyone in your area, whether they're in a car, at a park or walking down the street.
Your car has spewed MUCH more into the air in terms of pollution than any cig or cigar. How do you justify your complaint about a smoker in light of that?
I find it a little redundant to reply to the same question in two different places, so please see my other response to you.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I hate smoking and think it's pretty much one of the most disgusting habits one can have... I am a person who LOVES that WA has a smoking ban and I don't have to smell smoke wafting out of the office down the hall. I am a person who loves that you have to be 25 feet away from the entrance of any business, because I don't have to be leaving work and automatically inhale second hand marlboros instead of fresh air. Freedom or not, I benefit from the ban and I have to say, I personally don't mind it. I like it, even.
I also think it's totally fine for homeowners' associations to ban smoking within the homes of its members. If you don't like that idea, don't buy a house in that community. Or don't join the association. Or buy from a private seller (it's cheaper anyway).
All that said, I don't think it's okay to ban smoking in cars. The idea that it "comes in through the vents" is ridiculous. I don't think I've ever smelled cigarette smoke in either of my cars (the 1987 Cabriolet OR the 2007 Jetta).
I do, however, think it's DISGUSTING that people throw their cigarette butts, burning or not, from their car windows. That should be banned when it comes to smoking in the car. It's littering and 99% of the people driving in front of me who are smoking end up throwing the damn thing out of the window when they're done. Grrr.
[/rant]
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
-.-
For the last time... It's wishful thinking. It's along the same lines of anything else that anyone thinks of wishing others would do that they know for a fact that they cannot change for one reason or another.
It comes through my vents, in my car and makes me sick. Ergo, I wish that people wouldn't do it. But it's exactly that, a wish. If it were to come true, I'd be happy, however, I'm not going to push for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to try to make it true.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Nothing against you... I just don't think it's ever been an issue for me.
I'm with you. I enjoy the ban in my state, and I wouldn't be at all disappointed if the ban went further. I'm also with you in the fact that I won't fight for the ban to be more severe, even though I'd like it.
I think smoking's gross. I don't think anyone should do it. But I do think it's okay to smoke in your own car or your own home. [I know your argument isn't an argument at all... it's only wishful thinking. I'm just expanding. This is nothing against you or your argument.] I think there is a problem, though, when people have children in the car or in the home.
I've heard that proposed... that smoking around children, whether they're your own or not, should be illegal. I think that's a grand idea... but many people are against it.
I guess this question is for Lance... the people against that proposal say that it's an infringement of private freedoms. But when a child's health and/or life are at stake, is it still infringing on freedoms to ban smoking in front of said child?
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
I'm sorry, it's just that you're the fourth person in about as many hours who has said something about it.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I know. I apologize. I was just extending my opinion and experience with it.
Forgive me?
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
Forgiven. :)
It seems such matters are a touchier subject than one would think.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Yup, banning freedoms is a touchy subject with some.
What freedom is next? Perhaps something you like to do?
You mean like your desire to ban women's right to choose abortion?
Perhaps you should actually answer the comments I've addressed to you instead of finding the ones you can start arguments on.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
hmmm this is interesting and very useful considering I live in Michigan. How could they ban smoking outdoors though? I can see in places such as restuarants. They have done this in Europe already and I think it's great. There is no more smoking in restaurants and most clubs and bars. I do have to agree that it does allow for a more enjoyable dining experience.
___________________________________________________________________
"Most intellects do not believe in God, but they fear us just the same." - Erykah Badu
i do have to agree that it does allow for a more enjoyable dining experience.
Unless you're a smoker. But, it is ok to trample on them and tax them ungodly amounts of taxes. It isn't like they're people after all. They're smokers.
*evil grin*
Don't mean to be harsh, but many people want all of their freedoms any time they want, for any reason they want.... but don't mind restricting others if it is something that THEY don't like.
No offense, Lance, but I think if someone is so addicted and craving of their yucky cancer sticks that they can't wait an hour or an hour an a half until their meal is finished to have one, they have much bigger problems than the inconvenience of not being able to smoke in that restaurant.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
Perhaps, but the answer is not to remove the ability of restaurant owners to determine whether or not someone can smoke in their restaurant.
It is not the role of the government (federal OR State) to determine where one can smoke. One COULD make the case that they can determine WHO can smoke, but it is up to the land/business owner to determine if smoking is allowed at their place....
NOT the role of Government. You don't like smoke? That's fine. Make your own smoke-free business. You have (well, had) the same right as everyone else to make a business and determine if people can smoke there.