[macintologist]

Edit: The title originally was "Smoke ban nazis..." but it was changed to "Smoke ban socialists..." without my consent or notification.


I live in Wisconsin where many municipalities have passed smoking bans, effectively ending a businesses' right to choose whether or not they will permit smoking on their premis.

I've been reading some opinion articles by proponents of the bans, wondering how their freedom-hating brain works.

Students work for state smoking ban - Minnesota Daily
When Sarah Ryder worked at the Applebee's restaurant in Menomonie, Wis., she couldn't get away from the cigarette smoke that permeated the local eatery, she said.
"I found myself holding my breath a lot," she said.

At the time, neither the city nor the state of Wisconsin had a smoking ban in bars or restaurants.

If you don't like the smoke, then DONT GO

The Badger Herald - Need for statewide smoking ban
Madison’s smoking ban has taken effect and lungs all over the city are breathing a sigh of relief. [...]Bar and restaurant workers — as well as patrons — who have consistently been at risk for health problems have reason to be excited.

Bar workers have CHOSEN to work at a smoking bar. It is their CHOICE as a mature adult. Furthermore, if you don't like a smoking restaurant, THEN DONT GO, PERIOD.

Wisconsin State Journal
He has frustrations with the city and its rules, and he sympathizes with blue-collar bars on the city's borders that have struggled under the smoking ban

IF THEY DONT LIKE THE SMOKE THEY SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN WORKING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE

After opening a larger, more upscale - and voluntarily smoke-free - Opera House on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Haltinner and his partners created a complementary establishment nearby - the cigar bar Maduro at 117 E. Main St.

The mandatory smoking ban enacted in 2005 hit Maduro hard. The council narrowly allowed an exemption this spring.

More nanny retarded government ruining people's lives.

This **** makes me sick. I am NOT a smoker and I DO NOT enjoy cigarette smoke. I also DO NOT go to bars but if I was inclined and they had smoking in the bars, I WOULD NOT GO. My university campus has been smoke-free for many years. My university voluntarily made the decision to go smoke-free, and I like that. I will go to the on-campus bar which is smoke free too.

BUT I HATE IT when the government FORCES YOU to do business a certain way WHEN ITS NONE OF THEIR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS!!!!!!!!

[hyteckit]

I agree. I don't get the whole ban on marijuana and prostitutes either. If you don't like prostitutes then don't go to one. I like to smoke a cigarette or some marijuana when I'm done.

[turtle777]

Only in Commie-Land.

I don't smoke, but I also don't need the government to babysit me.

-t

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Only in Commie-Land.

I don't smoke, but I also don't need the government to babysit me.

-t

The government has an obligation to protect the public health. Smoking is very unhealthy, as is breathing in second hand smoke. Therefore, a smoking ban is a logical function of the government.

Do you think people have a right to dump toxic waste in their backyard? It's THEIR yard so they should do as they please, right? How about enforcing fire codes? You don't have to enter a crowded club with no emergency exits do you? It's your fault if the club catches fire and you die.

I just laugh at how people think a smoking ban is the end of the world for business like restaurants and bars. It's here in New York, and all of the restaurants and bars are still in business and more popular than ever now that you don't have to smell like the inside of someone's mouth. Get over it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

The government has an obligation to protect the public health. Smoking is very unhealthy, as is breathing in second hand smoke. Therefore, a smoking ban is a logical function of the government.

How soon can I expect the ban of fast food then ?

We all know it's gonna kill more people than smoking, and the effects on the health system will be devastating ?

-t

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

How soon can I expect the ban of fast food then ?

We all know it's gonna kill more people than smoking, and the effects on the health system will be devastating ?

-t

This has been covered before. The problem with smoking, unlike eating fast food, is that it also affects the health of everyone around you.

[Rumor]

It doesn't bother me any. Here in Cal, smoking isn't allowed in restaurants or bars. I'm indifferent when it comes to bars, but not smoking in restaurants is quite nice.

(I quit smoking about four years ago)

[mduell]

Why do you have the right to ruin my dining (or drinking or beachgoing, etc) experience with your smoke?
If smokers wore bags over their head to prevent the smoke from wafting onto those who aren't smoking, it would be fine. But they don't, and most even go so far as to blow the smoke away from them (because it looks cool?).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

This has been covered before. The problem with smoking, unlike eating fast food, is that it also affects the health of everyone around you.

How is public health in a privately owned restaurant any business of the government ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why do you have the right to ruin my dining (or drinking or beachgoing, etc) experience with your smoke?

Are you forced at gunpoint to go to THAT restaurant ?

-t

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

How is public health in a privately owned restaurant any business of the government ?

-t

because a privately held restaurant is a public place.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

because a privately held restaurant is a public place.

Only in Commie-Land !

-t

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Only in Commie-Land !

-t

Since the government doesn't own said restaurant, no.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Since the government doesn't own said restaurant, no.

And that's supposed to make me feel better ?
I'm sure the founding fathers did not intend the government to intrude like that into private space.

-t

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

And that's supposed to make me feel better ?
I'm sure the founding fathers did not intend the government to intrude like that into private space.

-t

How do you know what the founding fathers would have wanted. Did you use your time machine to go back to 1776 and ask them?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

How do you know what the founding fathers would have wanted. Did you use your time machine to go back to 1776 and ask them?

Yes, why are you asking ?

-t

[Doofy]

Yay! It's another game of Spot The Fascist!

+10 points for anyone spotting any fascists who come into this thread and whine about my using the word "fascist".

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yay! It's another game of Spot The Fascist!

+10 points for anyone spotting any fascists who come into this thread and whine about my using the word "fascist".

Does facist include Nazis ?
Or can we give +20 points to those ?

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Does facist include Nazis ?
Or can we give +20 points to those ?

Dunno dude - I'm just making it up as I go along. If you wanna hand out +20 for a Nazi, feel free.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

The government has an obligation to protect the public health. Smoking is very unhealthy, as is breathing in second hand smoke. Therefore, a smoking ban is a logical function of the government.

Do you think people have a right to dump toxic waste in their backyard? It's THEIR yard so they should do as they please, right? How about enforcing fire codes? You don't have to enter a crowded club with no emergency exits do you? It's your fault if the club catches fire and you die.

I just laugh at how people think a smoking ban is the end of the world for business like restaurants and bars. It's here in New York, and all of the restaurants and bars are still in business and more popular than ever now that you don't have to smell like the inside of someone's mouth. Get over it.

Where is this function of government enumerated?

The Federal government has no such obligation.

Does the state of Wisconsin?

Does the state of New York?

Please highlight the points in the state constitutions that make it so.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

The government has an obligation to protect the public health.

No it doesn't.

[hyteckit]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

How is public health in a privately owned restaurant any business of the government ?

-t

I guess you could ask the same in relation to health inspection standards? I mean, if the restaurant wants to have disease carrying vermin crawling around everywhere, what business is it of the government?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No it doesn't.

The government has an obligation to protect whatever the majority of people people say it should as long as it infringes upon their welfare.

As someone else said earlier, would it be ok if your neighbor decided to dump toxic waste in his backyard right along your fenceline. I mean, you were the one who decided to live there.

[analogika]

Calling somebody "socialist" apparently = "I like to think of myself as 'conservative' and happen to disagree but have no real argument"

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No it doesn't.

Actually it does if it want to govern a successful nation.

Of course it's one of those "balance" things, but on this case I am actually for government control.

My nutcase point of view: Get smoking out of my face when I am in public, but let me enjoy my marijuana in the privacy of my own home.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Let's say it made you happy to walk out into the street and stab people for fun. If it makes you happy, why should anyone stop you? Well, because when you fulfill your desire to stab someone, this infringes on the other person's happiness.

Likewise, when you smoke another person has to not only inhale your toxic fumes, but also deal with the unpleasant odor that smoke leaves on their clothing. The act of pursuing your happiness infringes on someone else's.

[vmarks]

And that's fine for a public owned space like a park.

But a restaurant that a restaurant owner pays mortgage on is not a public space. The owner has some rights, doesn't he?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Calling somebody "socialist" apparently = "I like to think of myself as 'conservative' and happen to disagree but have no real argument"

No, when you're talking about Government stepping in and engineering something based on a societal interest, it really is socialist.

[- - e r i k - -]

They would have a point if they actually lost business, but as history showed they didn't.

When Oslo went smoking free a couple of years ago:
- non-smokers that liked to go out was happier
- people who didn't go out before went out and were happy to do so
- smokers and non-smokers alike were happier having less smelly clothes and less of a hangover
- smokers got more easily laid being forced outside to chat with other smokers without the distraction of music, ie. smoking got even more social

End result: increased happiness all around, increased health-benefits all around (restaurant/bar workers in particular), and increased business for restaurant/bar owners.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

No, when you're talking about Government stepping in and engineering something based on a societal interest, it really is socialist.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[vmarks]

Big enough to give you everything you want?

Big enough to take it all away from you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The government has an obligation to protect whatever the majority of people people say it should as long as it infringes upon their welfare.

What? That made no sense.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Actually it does if it want to govern a successful nation.

Nope.

And I really don't give a toss whether a nation is successful or not. I'm into personal freedoms more than national success. Heck, Hitler was all about national success, wasn't he?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

They would have a point if they actually lost business, but as history showed they didn't.

When Oslo went smoking free a couple of years ago:
- non-smokers that liked to go out was happier
- people who didn't go out before went out and were happy to do so
- smokers and non-smokers alike were happier having less smelly clothes and less of a hangover
- smokers got more easily laid being forced outside to chat with other smokers without the distraction of music, ie. smoking got even more social

End result: increased happiness all around, increased health-benefits all around (restaurant/bar workers in particular), and increased business for restaurant/bar owners.

And strangely, some of those in favour of the ban were so happy with it that they moved to the other side of the planet.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And strangely, some of those in favour of the ban were so happy with it that they moved to the other side of the planet.

Indeed. We have just gotten the ban down under too, so I am happy.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And I really don't give a toss whether a nation is successful or not. I'm into personal freedoms more than national success. Heck, Hitler was all about national success, wasn't he?

So am I, but without a successful nation your personal freedoms (and you should have as many as possible) are worth diddly squat.

Politics are all about balance as you should know. It's all about common sense really and not letting your personal feelings get in the way.

[vmarks]

It is so reassuring to know that you feel at home compromising the freedom of those around you.

It's "balance, as you should know."

I regret to tell you: I take encroachment on freedom very personally. It's just common sense, you know.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Politics are all about balance as you should know. It's all about common sense really and not letting your personal feelings get in the way.

Of course it's about common sense. That's why I argue against blanket bans on smoking.

I'll say it again: If a smoking bar owner employing smoking staff serving smoking customers wants to allow smoking on his premises, what's it got to do with the government? Nowt.

And I'll defend your right to open a marijuana bar too. If you want to open a bar which allows it, what's it got to do with the government? Nowt.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And that's fine for a public owned space like a park.

But a restaurant that a restaurant owner pays mortgage on is not a public space. The owner has some rights, doesn't he?

Yes, the owner has a variety of rights but he or she does not have the right to endanger the health of their patrons or employees. By inviting the public into your private establishment means you have to follow certain rules. Someone else mentioned health inspections being an example.

Why do smokers believe that their personal happiness if MORE important than someone's else's health? it just seems self-centered to me.

A smoking ban is not a big deal. The bars all over my city have outdoor areas where smokers sit, order drinks and talk. The worst inconvenience is that they go out front of the bar and light up, then come back when they're finished. Big deal.

[turtle777]

Zeeb, as I said before, fast food is as much a danger to the public health (and the public health system) as smoking. So why not ban it as well ?

-t

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Zeeb, as I said before, fast food is as much a danger to the public health (and the public health system) as smoking. So why not ban it as well ?

-t

Because a guy eating a burger and fries does not affect the health of the guy eating a salad sitting right next to him. They both have made choices in this case that affects only themselves.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Because a guy eating a burger and fries does not affect the health of the guy eating a salad sitting right next to him. They both have made choices in this case that affects only themselves.

And a bunch of folks sitting in a smoking bar smoking has no effect on a bunch of non-smokers sitting in a non-smoking bar across the street.

Other than pissing them off because all the fun people are in the smoking bar and they themselves have to make do with talking to a bunch of pansy fascists.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Because a guy eating a burger and fries does not affect the health of the guy eating a salad sitting right next to him. They both have made choices in this case that affects only themselves.

Yes he does, by causing more stress on the health care system and higher taxes due to the increased burden on Medicare, Social Security, and state assisted health care programs.


So, now that THAT has been settled, let's ban McDonald's and Burger King! It's for the public good! Pass the ketchup, Mr Stalin.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

IF THEY DONT LIKE THE SMOKE THEY SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN WORKING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE

If they are too scared that the mine is collapsing, they shouldn't work as miners.
If they are too scared to fall from the trestle they shouldn't work in construction.
If they are too scared to loose a limb they shouldn't work in the saw mill.
If they don't like radioactivity they shouldn't work in the reprocessing plant.
etc.

We don't need work safety procedures. Everybody is at work voluntarily.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And a bunch of folks sitting in a smoking bar smoking has no effect on a bunch of non-smokers sitting in a non-smoking bar across the street.

Other than pissing them off because all the fun people are in the smoking bar and they themselves have to make do with talking to a bunch of pansy fascists.

Theoretically, if there were smoking and non-smoking bars across the street from each other then I would tend to agree.

I don't think this would work in practice however. How would you force some bars to be non-smoking and other's smoking? What criteria would you use and what if there was just one bar in a particular area? Right now owners could ban smoking in their bars if they wanted to but they don't. That's because they would be too afraid of losing customers to the bar that still allows it. I think banning smoking in all bars levels the playing field.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

If they are too scared that the mine is collapsing, they shouldn't work as miners.
If they are too scared to fall from the trestle they shouldn't work in construction.
If they are too scared to loose a limb they shouldn't work in the saw mill.
If they don't like radioactivity they shouldn't work in the reprocessing plant.
etc.

We don't need work safety procedures. Everybody is at work voluntarily.

Absolutely, regardless as to whether or not you are being sarcastic.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

If they are too scared that the mine is collapsing, they shouldn't work as miners.
If they are too scared to fall from the trestle they shouldn't work in construction.
If they are too scared to loose a limb they shouldn't work in the saw mill.
If they don't like radioactivity they shouldn't work in the reprocessing plant.
etc.

I agree. These are all legit work hazards and you have to accept them if you choose to work in those industries despite safety precautions.

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

We don't need work safety procedures. Everybody is at work voluntarily.

This statement I absolutely disagree with. So you want ALL safety procedures scrapped? So if the nuclear power plan you mentioned above suffered a meltdown and killed off everyone in the area because there were no safety procedures--you'd be ok with that?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

So if the nuclear power plan you mentioned above suffered a meltdown and killed off everyone in the area because there were no safety procedures--you'd be ok with that?

Maybe not a meltdown, since the people there might not all have chosen to live near to it. But do I need to protect the workers from radioactivity? No. If that is cheaper (and therefore more competitive} and workers choose to work in such a power plant voluntarily, then there's no need for workers' safety procedures. The power plant is privately owned after all. We can also have 16 hour work days, no vocations, no health care, and no pensions. As long as people are willing to work under such conditions that should be legal. At least it's like this if I follow the original poster's logic. Capitalism is king. Human life is trash.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I agree. These are all legit work hazards and you have to accept them if you choose to work in those industries despite safety precautions.



This statement I absolutely disagree with. So you want ALL safety procedures scrapped? So if the nuclear power plan you mentioned above suffered a meltdown and killed off everyone in the area because there were no safety procedures--you'd be ok with that?

The company that owns that plan has a financial stake in the safety of their workers. If an accident like that were to happen, and it was determined that it was negligent homicide, that company would most certainly be out of business, their stock would be dumped and the CEOs would lose everything and might even be jailed.

[Buckaroo]

You know, until your post, I agreed with you on smoking in Bars, now I'm totally in favor of banning all smoking in all public and apartment buildings.

If you want to smoke, then put a plastic bag over your head with a filter so it will filter out the smoke so no one else will have to breath he stench. Cigerette smoke gives me a headache, certain brands are worse than others.

Smoking has hundreds of hazardous chemicals, and I should not have to breath in your toxins.