Who The Hell Declared The Smoking Wars Underway?

[DistressedAmerican]

WTF? :freak:

Of all the pointless crap to be arguing over with just a few months to replace those asshats in Congress.

A little focus maybe? :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

1. This is "General Discussion"

There's nothing wrong with having a variety of topics. This is a very current topic in many cities that are considering smoking bans.

[Blue-Jay]

4. You're just saying that because you started it.

:D

[Radical Activist]

7. haha True

But I'm still right. :)

[Kingshakabobo]

11. LOL.

:)

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Agree wholeheartedly! n/t

[BOSSHOG]

3. Its balls to the wall news in the New Orleans area

as the state is fixing to ban all smoking in restaurants.

[theboss]

5. It's an important issue if your city or state is instituting a ban

It could probably be discussed in a more genteel manner though.

[Greyhound]

6. The health nazis are our "taliban".

They know what is best for you and you'd better not question it. Nothing is more important than that they get to decide what rules are imposed on you "for your own good".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. yeah, they really drive me nuts.

Who are they to tell me that I should wash my hands after using the toilet? Fucking nazis.

[pnwmom]

26. Oh yeah. Everybody knows the nazis were big on hand-washing.

[lindisfarne]

10. I know what's best for me, and that is not being exposed to 2ndhand

smoke. I know what's best for children, and that is not being exposed to 2ndhand smoke, including in their homes or parents' cars (smoking around a child constitutes child endangerment).

Frankly, I don't care if you choose to smoke, as long as your smoke does not come my way or the way of any nonsmokers or children, including not wafting out of your window into my apartment if you smoke at home. This includes not having to breathe your smoke as I walk into a building.

[Greyhound]

13. But don't you see that there's a substantial difference between your

desire to live without encountering smoke (in this case) and imposing, through threat of state sanctioned violence, your will on everybody else? I don't think many smokers have a problem with some restrictions (office for example), but the law is an extension of the power of the state, and as such, the precedent is set forever. What about when they outlaw all nuts and nut products because of the 0.0001% of the population that will literally go into shock and can even die from encountering even the dust? Or how about when there are a significant number of people that are offended by your distrust of a given administration? Why shouldn't the state be able to take your home from you if another person wants to put your land to better use than simply housing your family? What's to stop them from telling you that you must carry that fetus to term because it is murder to end an unwanted pregnancy, or better yet, how about forced impregnation because you carry a gene that is important to the benefit of society at large?

[lindisfarne]

14. You're really arguing at a ridiculous level. If I were spraying peanut

dust into the breathing space of someone I know to be allergic to peanut dust, I should be prosecuted for attempted murder.

I'd like to outlaw synthetically scented products, by the way. They give a lot of people migraines -- the synthetic fragrances create all sorts of health problems that the natural scents do not. Not to mention, they're simply unnecessary.

[Lindacooks]

16. Thank you!!!!

That's what smokers don't get - they're polluting the air I breathe with known carcinogens. If I sprinkled pesticides on their food they'd be all up in arms, but for some reason, smokers seem to think they get a pass just because they're addicted to nicotine.

And smokers aren't a protected minority - they HAVE no rights when it comes to lighting up.

[kestrel91316]

60. Some people here are NOT Democrats. They're Libertarians.

You're arguing with one, I suspect.

I don't know why on earth they come here and disrupt. This is CLEARLY stated to be a DEMOCRATIC/LIBERAL forum, and Libertarianism is neither.

[Lindacooks]

15. That's ridiculous.

Cigarette smoke is a Class A carcinogen, along with benzene and arsenic. If I went around spraying benzene and arsenic in your face, you'd have me arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.

Extending smoking bans to abortion, nut products, and eminent domain is stupid.

[Greyhound]

17. It is all the same. Every totalitarian government in recorded history

has begun by "doing what is best for the majority", that is one of the reasons this country was not created as a democracy, but as a republic instead to avoid the tyranny of the majority, IOW mob rule.

Every one of those examples I gave can use exactly the same logic the anti-smokers use to argue this issue, it is better for society, so you must make the sacrifice. It is the other edge of the sword of law.

[lindisfarne]

22. No one has said you cannot continue to smoke, as long as your smoke

stays out of the breathing air of nonsmokers and children.

[Greyhound]

30. Thank you for totally ignoring the point.

:hi:

[eowyn_of_rohan]

45. Would you agree to stay away from places where smokers

are known to congregate if smokers would stay away from non-smoking places? I am sure there are many bars, clubs, etc that allow smoking, where you would not consider going regardless of if there was smoke in there or not. But I have heard way too much from people who think they have the right to banish smoking from every business regardless of whether they, themselves, patronize it or not.

[pnwmom]

24. Every good government tries to protect people from being

harmed by others. Protecting people from second hand smoke is like protecting people from other people and their weapons.

To a person with asthma, a cigarette waving in his or her face might as well be a can of pepper spray, because it can trigger an asthma attack. Would you say that people ought to be able to wave pepper spray in each other's faces, too?

[Greyhound]

31. Name one or these so-called "good governments", please. n/t

[pnwmom]

33. I don't understand your question. Are you about to announce that

there is no such thing as a good government, or are you disputing that good governments are set up to protect people -- and from each other, if need be?

[Greyhound]

34. "Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men

that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay." - P. Shelley (1792–1822)

See also: "Common Sense" - T. Paine

It is apparently beyond human capability to resist abusing any power given them, therefore the only recourse is to give them as little as possible.

BTW, You haven't named a "good government".

[pnwmom]

36. That's because I figured your response would be that there is no

such thing.

I guess I should have said "less bad."

[Greyhound]

37. That is my view, I would just like to know what your view of a good

government is.

I came to my opinion through the realization that at the most fundamental level, governments exert their power through the threat and application of violence. While, as Shelly stated, it may be a necessary evil, it is still evil. Therefore it must be severely restrained and thoroughly controlled.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. I See You Two Have Completely Missed The Point Of My OP.

[Greyhound]

43. Maybe a little...

:blush:

[kestrel91316]

62. The Libertarian trolls are out in force today. You're tangling with one.

[Protagoras]

58. What sort of government announces it's doing LESS than

what is best for the majority? I mean as long as we are talking historical parallels.

[lindisfarne]

23. Well, I'm sure you'd agree Repubs shouldn't be allowed to tamper

with voting machines, yet virtually everyone on DU would agree that should not be allowed. The basic rights of fairness and justice and wellbeing end up in forming some laws that infringe upon what someone else might want to do.

[Greyhound]

32. Of course that is wrong, in fact, it is illegal, and that is the point.

Many here advocate, whether they know it or not, granting the government the power to prohibit a legal activity. Leaving fact that it has never and will never work aside, this stance only serves to expand the power of the state over its citizens, with no protection nor recourse. It is the exact same policy that has allowed the government to seize private property from innocent citizens, under the aegis of a fictitious "war on drugs", leaving them to bear the total cost of the government's mistakes and providing no redress, IOW the property is charged and no defense is allowed.

If you want to outlaw tobacco and tobacco products, that is an issue that can be debated and a rational decision can be reached, but the idea of giving the government unchecked power in the belief that it will use that power wisely and fairly is naive, at best.

This is another Pandora's Box that too many short-sighted people are screaming to open with no thought of the potential consequences whatsoever. Just another step in the headlong rush to our own little police state.

[lindisfarne]

54. You keep claiming people want to outlaw tobacco and tobacco products.

That's something few people advocate. What they advocate is keeping smoke from those products away from others.

It's illegal in CA to smoke indoors in a public space/business or within 25 feet of windows/doors/air intakes of ventilation system. Thus, it is wrong and illegal to smoke in these places. It's also illegal to smoke in outdoor places (beaches, parks, etc.) in certain communities. Again, it is wrong and illegal to smoke in these places. Just as it is wrong and illegal to tamper with voting machines.

This issue is 2ndhand smoke and the health risks it poses to others (before you go round in a circle again, I'm all for much stricter auto emissions, higher gasoline mileage, and people walking/biking much more than they do, rather than driving. But failure to adequately address one issue does not mean we should roll back gains made on another issue.)

I find it amazing how ridiculous the lines of argumentation from DU smokers can become.

[kestrel91316]

63. None of us wants to outlaw tobacco products. SOME of us would be

happy to see smokers forced to inhale every single molecule of their own smoke (it IS their property, after all) all by themselves so that ALL the tar and nicotine and crud wind up inside their own bodies.

It's the forcing others to inhale it against their wishes that people object to.

You want to smoke, do it on your own property in an enclosed space. And choke on that crap all by yourself.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. For restaurant staff, a restaurant = the office

If it were only the restaurant customers who were being effected by this, you could make the argument that they are imposing their will on others through the government and that they have every right not to go eat somewhere else. But dating back to Teddy Roosevelt's presidency, we have decided that the state should extend its authority to ensure that workers have the right to go to work in a safe environment. Just like you should be able to go to work in a building without asbestos in the walls so that you don't get lung cancer, restaurant staffs should be able to go to work in a building without secondhand smoke so that the don't get lung cancer. That is why I think that smoking bans in restaurants, unless there is a smoking section outside of the building, are not an unreasonable expansion of state power. Someone in another thread also mentioned that through proper ventilation, there can be an isolated smoking section that doesn't effect workers and if a restaurant wants to make those renovations to have a smoking secton, then that's fine with me. But I consider workers' rights far more important than someone's desire to smoke a cigarette inside a restaurant.

[Protagoras]

57. Yeah evil health professionals and non smokers

are the real threat to our civil liberties. I've got about $50 worth of energy to pour into an issue this week...better make it smoking because issues like the national debt, our Imperial wars, free speech, free press, and privacy are just dominos to be nocked down on the way to their true goal...

These threads crack me up, really they do.

:popcorn:

[kestrel91316]

59. I'm a "health nazi" for resenting the fact that you are forcing me to

inhale your secondhand smoke???????

Your right to entertainment (and that's ALL that smoking is....)ends where my body begins. Period.

[patdem]

9. I think they are called 'Distractors in Chief'?

Yes, smoking bans are gonna change our lives how? Sue smokers? WOW..if ya gotem smokem!

[pnwmom]

25. Smoking bans do cause changes in our lives.

Smokers suffer because they have fewer places where they can smoke. Non-smokers enjoy a change for the better. But both definitely notice the change when a smoking ban goes in effect.

[kestrel91316]

64. The ban on smoking in the workplace in CA has sure changed MY life.

I can now go to restaurants, bars, malls, stores, etc and ACTUALLY BREATHE.

[Warpy]

12. Smokers did

back in the bad old days when they thought they had a god given right to make the rest of us smoke along with them no matter where they happened to be. Well, except church. Nobody smoked in church, not even in NC.

I'm all for banning it in enclosed public spaces. However, what you do in your own home is your problem.

[AnnInLa]

18. I'll Second That Emotion

Divisive, divisive.

Focus, indeed!

[hogwyld]

19. The American Taliban is alive and well

No smoking at home, no perfume, no music that they don't approve of. I used to own a bar in California. Closed it down once the fascist smoking ban took effect.

[Greyhound]

21. Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! Rob Reiner has personally assured me that you

do not exist. Nor has there been any mythical loss of revenue to those that were able to stay open, nor has anybody lost their job due to the loss of business, nor have the staff suffered any reduction in their tips.

Why do you hate America? Can't you understand that we only want to help you to understand what is best for you?

[kestrel91316]

65. Yeah, the nerve of trying to protect workers' lungs!!!!!!!

PS - stop trying to promote the LIE that you can't smoke at home.

Pray tell, what is with the obsession with individual rights to the extent that there is an utter lack of caring about anyone else's suffering?????

I see the Libertarian/RW mole trolls are out in force today.

[IdaBriggs]

20. Maybe because it *is* kind of pointless, its fun to argue about in a

good humored way. There isn't a drattable thing we can do to solve much of the problems we are being given information about, but if we can convince one or two fellow "others" to see things our way about the smoking/breathing/they're-my-lungs debate, maybe it will help solve world hunger, etc.

No one is going to "not vote for Democrats" because of this, but its an issue that actually MATTERS in our daily lives.

And don't even get me started on the drug wars, because I never knew we had so many people who are complete idiots on the subject! :sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

27. So now we have two smoking threads. Shall we add a spitting thread, too?

[Buns_of_Fire]

28. For the record, I'm generally against spitting.

Farting, too, unless some level of plausible deniability can be maintained. I don't want people to know when I contribute to the methane levels in the atmosphere.

[pnwmom]

29. My dog would like you.

For some strange reason (considering all the places where he puts his nose) he appears to really hate the smell of methane, at least when produced by a human.

[Buns_of_Fire]

41. Perhaps, but only until I blamed him for the free-floating gas cloud.

You see, dogs ARE my "plausable deniability" when it comes to the release of my personal methane reserves into the atmosphere! (If no dogs are around, I'll blame it on the cat or whatever lovable furry woodland creature is in the vicinity. I even blamed it on a canary once. Almost got away with it, too! :smoke: )

[beam me up scottie]

44. LOL! LOL! LOL!

:spray:

Your post, coupled with your user name, is the funniest damn thing I've seen all week!!!

:rofl:

Thank you thank you thank you !!!

[pnwmom]

50. My dog would blow your cover, then.

If he were anywhere near you at the time of the release, he would instantly raise his little nose into the air, take a few good whiffs, turn to look at you reprovingly, and then quickly remove himself to a less foul-smelling area.

Like next to the trash can.

[Rex]

35. If you smoke it doesn't bother you, if you don't it stinks to high heaven.

People focus first on what is bothering them locally, then they care about the nation. It is called being an American.

[Jed Dilligan]

39. A lot of non-smokers enjoy the smell of tobacco

Strangely enough. It's not good for you but for me, it makes me remember my childhood, and of course people who are dead now. :( Tobacco is used in a lot of beautiful indigenous ceremonies that I've participated in, it's particularly good for remembering the dead. Respect it and it won't harm you. I do agree that commercial American cigarettes are pretty foul smelling whether you partake of tobacco or not.

[readmoreoften]

42. I like the smell of tobacco. Not a smoker.

But I agree, this flamefest was started by ridiculous propositions, including the jailing of all parents who smoke in front of their children. I would take up arms against someone making that proposition as quickly as I would any other jackboot kicking in the door of my family home.

We have more important things to worry about. Unfortunately, when the right wing talks about nannystaters I usually roll my eyes. I had no idea that people like this exist-- and actually call themselves liberal or progressive.

[Jed Dilligan]

46. They are outnumbered but vocal.

I'm not sure what compels them but they are hell-bent on using legislation and the courts to decrease people's statistical chances of dying. It's no way to win popularity, it's more like a crusade--the same way the far right's social-control tendencies actually dampen the enthusiasm of the voters for the relative moderates they run. Interestingly, our nannystaters here tend to moderate, not left-dem politics otherwise. So we could make the argument that social-control policy is intrinsically rightist or that the expansion of state powers is always ultimately conservative in nature.

[readmoreoften]

52. That'd be a great talking point.

I just don't understand the extremist mentality. I do understand having mandatory smoking sections, or banning smoke on airplanes or other closed environments. But jailing parents who smoke? And if secondhand smoke is so detrimental, why isn't there an absolute health crisis in Europe? There's smoking in every restaurant and on trains. The smoking in Europe can get to levels that I find irritating. But I generally walk out of those establishments. You know, if I can see smoke hanging in the air.

Seems to me to be a totalitarian impulse. These people also ruin socialized medicine by vowing to deny health services to smokers. I find it as sickening as every other form of totalitarianism.

[Jed Dilligan]

55. I think they just have a better diet and environment in Europe.

We've created a world with carcinogens everywhere, lawns, car exhaust, buildings, power lines, et cetera. It's nearly impossible to avoid them. We need to fight the cancer proactively by eating good, healthy food, and eating it regularly, instead of fighting uphill to eliminate the ubiquitous carcinogens. I've watched clean-living exercise freaks drop dead suddenly in their thirties because they were workaholics (and workout-aholics) who forgot to eat and sleep. Individually we should be building our defenses against cancer instead of making another "War On" out of it. This is not to say that industry should continue to have its accustomed unchecked power to toxify the commons, but that's a long battle and until then I advise everyone to eat healthy, don't go to a smoke filled bar every night, and if you're still a rabid prosectution maniac maybe you should smoke something and chill out before stress destroys your system.

[Rex]

49. People traditionally burn things so the smell reminds them of

past times or for spiritual events. I agree, the smell of tobacco is nice I like it too. That is a far cry from the smell of a cigarette that has 700 chemicals in it. People should get back to just rolling their own smoke! Fuck corporate cigarettes! Roll your own! :smoke:

[Jed Dilligan]

56. There's scientific evidence

The olfactory nerves are a more direct line to your memory center than any other sense.

[Balbus]

40. Richard Carmona aka the surgeon general

here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

[guinivere]

47. Because it's easier to try to control a group of people (smokers)

then it is to control the bigger craziness that is going on.

[johnaries]

48. It is a "red herring" issue dividing DU.

Whether the original intent was to divide DU and distract us from more important issues or not, that is the result.

Let's put this non-issue to bed and get on with more important and relevant issues. ok?

:hi: :grouphug:

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Because workers' rights isn't a pointless issue

It is an issue that is part of our heritage as democrats and one that we have championed throughout our history.

I don't agree with legislating to make things easier for me. I don't support a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars because I want to go to those places and not have to inhale second hand smoke. If I don't like it I can go somewhere else.

However, workers of restaurants and bars don't have that same luxury to go somewhere else. Waiters, waitreses, chefs, janitorial staff, etc. have just as much right to go to work in an environment free of second hand smoke as you and I do. Does a smoking ban infringe on the liberties of a business owner? Yes it does. Does a minimum wage, an 8 hour work day, and child labor laws do the same thing? Yes they do. But I highly doubt that you will find anyone on DU that will argue against those laws.

[Jed Dilligan]

61. You know, I've been reading DU for a few years and

This comes up kind of cyclically. It's always an "important moment" when we "need to be unified" when it happens, but aren't all moments important and don't we always need unity? I mean, this administration is never-a-dull-moment to the max. There's always a scandal breaking that "if we just had more message control" we could turn to the humiliation and downfall of this administration. There are always "more important things" for DU to discuss.

And you know what? They keep getting discussed, smoking wars or not. There is still outrage when something outrageous happens. There are still people pleading for help for their local candidates and the same people seem to answer those pleas. So what's the net effect? Except for bandwidth, about nil. And you could make the argument this is the cost of doing business since people probably join and donate in large numbers because they like to debate or even fight, even with their own side.

Now the argument's been made that there's some kind of Rovian conspiracy lurking here that creates "division" whenever the administration does something wrong. I think the administration is always doing something wrong. What happens is a smoking DU member getsr riled up about further taxes or anti-smoking laws or corporate policies, or a non-smoking DU member gets annoyed by a smoker, they post a rant and others respond and they start fights and go off and start their own threads. It peters out after a little while, usually just a few days.

So, it would be equally relevant to ask why are people posting threads about how useless other threads are when they could be posting something that helps get more Democrats elected to Congress. I have several times solicited people for advice on what to do and I can't get much. My vote doesn't matter, I could give it to Peace and Freedom and we'd still re-elect our Democrat incumbents where I come from. I doubt that Bush's popularity is coming back, kudos to us for spreading hatred and the seeds of doubt. The real problem is how to stain all future Republican candidates with the ugly smear of this administration's rapaciousness. So how about it: tell me what I should do personally to help get the asshats out. I'm a Californian with limited amounts of money and at least as much free time as I spend here.