Tyranny of the majority: Smoking ban is just plain wrong

TwinCities.com ^ | May. 20, 2004 | MATTHEW J. GOLLINGER

[SheLion]

.......so that I can enjoy a nice glass of wine, free from the stench of stale cigarette smoke and cheap cigars.

To each their own, Michael.

You must not travel too much. The smoke eaters of today did away with the "stench."

[Carcharodon]

I was truly amazed when they introducewd one in Ireland. I haven't been there since (thankfully I moved two weeks before i came in) but I simply couldn't imagine an Irish pub without its haze of smoke.

I'm all for smoke-free areas in bars and restaurants, but only that - areas. Everybody should be accomodated.

[swarthyguy]

Taliban America. Insha'allah!

[timm22]

If they took a minimum of care they might stop the trend. But they won't.

I think that may have been the case ten or twenty years ago, but not anymore. I think too many people now are offended just by the idea of smoking. Just seeing someone in a restaurant or other place lighting up, or knowing that someone, somewhere is enjoying tobacco, is unacceptable to them. No matter how polite a smoker may be, some people will still go to great lengths, including appealing to the state, to eliminate what they see as a fundementally evil act.

[SheLion]

On my way out the door, Friday afternoon date time ya know, but marking for later read!!!!

Heheh! Ok! Have fun, Gabz!!

[SheLion]

....including appealing to the state, to eliminate what they see as a fundementally evil act.

'Ain't' it the truth!

[swarthyguy]

Shoot Smokers NOW!

Better yet, castrate and sterilize them! Keep the taxes flowing

[timm22]

Without government you would probably still be flying on smokefilled planes, eating in smokefilled restaurants and sleeping in smoke-stenched rooms with cigarette burns on the bed covers.

Do you lack confidence in the workings of the free market in general, or just on this particular issue?

[Protagoras]

Look for the mentally disturbed authoritarians masquerading as conservatives to soon arrive on this thread and begin to attack you.

[Protagoras]

I'm all for smoke-free areas in bars and restaurants, but only that - areas. Everybody should be accomodated.

If the owner of the property feels like accomodating them.

Anything else is tyranny.

[MeekOneGOP]

[LynnHam]

Unfortunately this 'trend' is gaining momentum. Our city council (Albuquerque NM) recently enacted a total smoking ban in every restaurant in the city. We have a 30' rule around any building that houses businesses (public and private).

My husband an I went to Wyoming for 2 weeks didn't know it was totally non smoking ... we decided to just eat take out food like McDonald's pizza hutt .. never went to one restaurant there if they don't want smokers money they won't get mine.

[nothingnew]

Its because smokers don't care that the bans are happening. If they took a minimum of care they might stop the trend. But they won't.

I'm a smoker as most of my friends are. Almost all of us respected non-smokers wishes long before any "bans" came about. Besides, this is still and only a property rights issue.

FMCDH

[cinFLA]

I remember sleeping in smoke-stenched rooms with cigarette burns on the covers.

I remember having to share an office with a smoker.

I remember flying in smoke filled planes.

I remember eating in smoke filled restaurants.

I remember the how laws changed all that.

[Protagoras]

I remember freedom.
I remember property rights.
I remember how some laws changed all that.

[Studebaker Hawk]

Shoot (fill in the blanks)---kers NOW! Better yet, castrate and sterilize them! Keep the taxes flowing

[MileHi]

Wanting to fill a room with smoke because one cannot restrain themselves is pure selfishness.

Beat that straw man! Not being able to restrain oneself has not a damn thing to do with it. But then your smug, self-righteous self already knew that, didn't you.

[swarthyguy]

See the looks you get when you simply hold a cig in a Taliban establishment. People literally look at you funny, hey, wait, maybe that's because of the kaffiyeh on my head.

[Graymatter]

I say if a fellow walks into a restaurant, and sets fire to a limited amount of weeds, to satisfy a compulsion to inhale the smoke---this doesn't make him a disorderly person under the law.

As long as he doesn't yell "Fire!" he shouldn't be prosecuted.

OTOH the management shouldn't be legally obliged to serve him.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I have no problem with some smoking bans. I do think others go too far. But I would favor a ban on gay kissing in public. What's the difference in that and public nudity? It offends the moral sense of the majority, so do it in private. They sell legalizing gay sex to us as a privacy of the bedroom issue and then they spend 24/7 cramming it in our faces. Go back to your bedrooms like you promised.

Smoking is not so much a moral issue as a health issue. I think it is not tyranny for the majority to decide they do not want to tolerate public smoking. It is an issue that affects everyone present, not just the one that chooses to smoke. We are selfish. That the author is correct about. But the selfishness is just as much on the side of the in-your-face smoker as it is on the side of those who wish to not have smoke in their face. We are a selfish generation with the collective wisdom of a gnat. We might be very cute and clever, but we are a pack of nearsighted, arrogant fools (generally speaking and not including most freepers).

Back when liberty was worth fighting for it meant something entired deeper than whether or not you get to puff smoke in people's faces and flaunt your immorality with court-ordered public blessings. These are the issues of a spoiled generation.