You're right. It could be worse :-)
Posted on 09/10/2019 2:17:51 AM PDT by C19fan
Famed British artist David Hockney is giving up Los Angeles after 55 years for Normandy, France, to live out the rest of his days. 'I can do twice as much work there, three times as much,' Hockney tells the Wall Street Journal of leaving the city that made him famous in the 1960s. 'I've probably not much time left and because I don't, I value it even more.' It's there in his new home, which he bought on a whim last year after seeing it for just 25 minutes, that the 82-year-old created his latest work inspired by the view from his Normandy house to be showcased this fall in Manhattan. 'I'd like to just work and paint,' he says. 'And to be able to smoke and eat in a restaurant at the same time. Thank God for Normandy. The French know how to live. They know about pleasure.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Im not discussing banning anything. You light up by me, I’m probably going to say something. And yeah, if you show up in your stack-pipe modified Dodge Ram 1500 diesel redneck ride, and carb it up outside my house leaving a thick black cloud, I’m coming outside to let you know how much of a jackass you are.
You're right. It could be worse :-)
“I see it more as a public health concern”
That’s your line that prompted my response.
I was pointing out that that’s BS.
The truth is you simply don’t like it and yes I believe you would let others know about it. You tout the “science” to justify your dislike and that is the exact mechanism used to obtain bans.
Agree, it is interesting. Once somebody learns that something is obviously bad for you, something they themselves don’t do, they easily become fascistic, believing they’re doing everyone a favor by dictating what they can and can’t do.
Sorry, I believe in liberty, if you enjoy it - without harming others - the State should get lost. Sure, enclosed environments should have restrictions. That said, there should be choice. A bar should be able to *choose* if they want to allow smoking, at least having an indoor smoking room, away from others. When the State dictates “nope, not allowed” then you’ve violated our liberty. Free markets will sort it out.
I have wondered if airlines should try “smoking flights” and charge a premium. There’s probably not enough people to justify it, although it’s probably volatile geographically.
I absolutely love SOME of his work.
Sorry, but the poster does NOT have that power, nor did he advocate that anyone should be granted it.
Never heard of him, smoking when does he burst into flames?
That's because it is the correct argument.
The reality is society has a fundamental “right” to limit, proscribe, regulate, or restrict addiction and other vices commonly called nuisances in economic talk.
Please tell me where in the federal constitution is this right enumerated. Hint: the Commerce Clause isn't the answer.
Epstein doesn’t have the right to rape children on his property.
Are you REALLY equating smoking with the physical act of child rape?
7/11 doesn’t have the right to display porn.
Actually, they do...they've chosen to cover up the mags and/or not sell certain filthy magazines out of market concerns. In certain cases the local govt imposes community restrictions, presumably out of concern for minors. If so, I guess you're equating an adult coming in contact with smoke and a child seeing pornography, which candidly is messed-up.
Islam doesn’t have the right to female genital mutilation.
There you go again, equating physical violence with smoke.
You don’t have the right to chickenhawk boys on your property.
I don't even know what that means and I'm not googling it, but you seem to have a deep association of child endangerment of a ghastly variety with smoking.
You don’t have the right to put a leather tanning factory next to my house.
On the contrary, in certain towns like Houston where zoning laws permit such freedom, yes.
Look, I get it...you don't like smoking. Indeed, I don't like my clothes stinking of smoke after I leave a club. That's all well and good. It's a free country. But your desire to use the state to regulate freedom is akin to that of the DNC. Why stop at smoking? Let's ban MAGA hats, or car exhaust, or wood burning stoves, or coal-fired generation plants, caffeine, trans fats etc. You are greasing the left's slippery slope.
In another one of his posts he bragged about making an entire flight non smoking because he went out of his way to complain about the last 3 rows. He even compared it to Trump's winning. He leaves little doubt as to what he would do if he had the chance. But keep on defending him if you like.
You spend every day scanning for headlines that bash smokers so that you can spew your hatred at every possible opportunity. Being a nasty a-hole isn’t a conservative value.
I just hope you realize that the template for getting rid of smokers (“otherizing,” incrementally outlawing, excessively taxing, etc), is now being used in an identical way against gun owners. And very sympathetic people with sad stories about how guns hurt their loved ones will be a part of it all.
Well, maybe not directly ...
There can be no doubt that social conservatives, joining with liberals and moderates have won the battle of smoking. WINNING
I don’t mind being called a nasty a-hole by those who pimp death or addiction.
You haven’t won anything. All you did is grease the skids for more government control over your life. AOC is a natural extension of your quest to get other people to ban something you don’t agree with. Are you also proud of the way your BFFs spent the tobacco settlement money?
My inclination is for people to sort out these issues without state intervention. There are PLENTY of restaurants etc where smoking is banned or permitted - let people peaceably assemble with like-minded/smoking folk and keep the govt out of it. Government will only screw it up.
The issue of parents and kids and smoking is pretty cut and dry for me: the govt needs to stay out. Physical abuse is different - the state has a responsibility to protect people from physical harm. But smoking...well, if we let the state get invited loved there, then why not regulate diet ("I'm sorry Mr DoodleBob but your kids have had too much red meat this week...") or a host of other things.
The reality is that times DO change: it is pretty much socially understood that smoking while pregnant is bad, and kids being exposed to smoking isn't great. It wasn't that way in the 60s or 70s. Now, it varies across this great land...your avg parent in Manhattan would be ostracized for smoking near their kids while maybe less so in central PA. I also would note that smoking also calms nerves and suppresses appetite....maybe we would prefer parents to fire up vs being oversight and beating their Kids? It's tough, and I appreciate your position. Thanks for listening.
He won't last too much longer if all he cares about is smoking.
It saddens me how this sitr is full of people who actually do not want a Free Republic.
I don’t like cigarette smoke either but I’d fight for the rights of other Americans to pursue their own happiness.
Our laws come in when one’s rights impinge others’ and I’m good with intelligent people making rational compromises.
But this country should remain true to freedom as much as possible. It’s not freedom if people can only do what YOU like.
I really like it. It’s my home town from a familiar vantage. Course I can’t pay for it all at once, mind you...
Lighten up Francis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.