BeachesBeavis & Buttheads..... They can't spell the article title right !
Posted on 06/24/2004 9:32:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Not necessarily. I just know that being truly free means that some individuals might just participate in behaviours that I don't like. I accept that they are free to do those things if no harm is brought to anyone else.
Littering harms the rest of us, enforce the existing littering laws to address the problem of littering.
I will state that with the attitude of many "conservatives" right here on FR, the Libertarian party is looking more tempting.
BeachesBeavis & Buttheads..... They can't spell the article title right !
Not a bit.
I do. It makes no difference if there any evidence linking it with cancer; I just don't want to breathe it. End of argument. Do whatever you want with your air, on your property, but as soon as it is my air, on public property, there is no "smoker's right" to foul it.
The conservative principle is that whoever owns the property gets to use it however they want. Ergo, ban smoking on public property. Let private property owners (which includes bars, restaurants, ball parks, etc.) decide for themselves.
We're almost there.
;O)
Hi SheLion, thanks for the ping.
First, the danger of second hand smoke is a lie. Both my parents smoked all my life and I never suffered any ill effects from it. I've smoked for over 20 years and can still outrun most of my peers. So the second hand smoke argument does not hold water. I realize that most anti-smokes cannot accept this FACT because it so severely curtails their argument and agenda.
To be fair, throwing cigarette butts on the ground is littering and there is no excuse for that. There are already laws addressing the act of littering so another law (smoking ban) will not make any difference. I NEVER throw my cigarette butts on the ground OR out the window. Remember, in the summer time there are folks on motorcycles including a friend of mine who was hit in the face by a lit butt that some careless driver threw out his window while driving down highway.
Smoking bans are nothing more than other people trying to force their will and views on me. Won't happen.
I am a courteous smoker. I don't throw my butts down (littering), and do not smoke where it is prohibited. I have been willing to meet the anti-smokers halfway. If the anti-smokers do not show the same courtesy, I will stop trying to meet them half way.
"I do. It makes no difference if there any evidence linking it with cancer; I just don't want to breathe it. End of argument."
So you also agree with the use of government force to ensure that you are not offended by a certain smell. How very conservative of you.
I don't like the smell of perfume, how about we ban perfume on all public property? Should we set up an olfactory sensor machine that all citizens must enter for screening prior to entering any public property? Who gets to set the olfactory standard?
I'm not usually so snarky.
Obviously, these things should be (and usually are) settled by discussion among civil people. Since smokers, as a group, are notoriously numb to everybody around them, they are beyond civil appeals.
There has to be a limit, of course, based on practicality. Addressing perfume is not practical and the problem (though legitimate) is about one millionth the scale of the smoke problem.
Banning smoking on public property is a straightforwardly conservative (even libertarian) exercise of government force.
Smoking, outside of your personal air space, it is an unlawful seizure of the air of thise around you and should be constrained by force, if necessary. Am I being at all unclear?
And the good news is that it will. The only reason it has taken this long is that it takes a while for a culture to get unaddicted.
My only regret is that the property rights of private, commercial establishments are being abused in the process, in an abuse at least as bad as the abuse it purports to cure.
"I agree with the use of government force to keep visible pollutants out of my air. Simple as that."
In your previous post you said that the SHS health issue was irrelevant because you didn't want to smell it. Which is it, a health issue or not.
If you can't make up your mind regarding the issue being a health issue or a smell issue how do you expect anyone reading your posts to take you seriously?
Would you accept an acceptable exposure level (PPM) for SHS? Would you accept a standard being established by the EPA?
Yes.
It is a property rights issue. I have no obligation to prove to you that a substance you are injecting into my air harms me, or even that I can smell it. If I can see it or smell it I should be able to choose not to breathe it. The limit to this principle is a practical one, not a legal or moral one.
There you have it. In the end, property is the bedrock of a rational civil order, so this perspective is the ONLY one that will ever work. Simple, direct, fair to all.
I recognize that property arguments are not at the basis of much of the law that is being written now and that is the reason for their frequent confusion and hypocrisy.
Don't be too hard on ol' Redbob. At least he's selected an appropriate moniker.
I agree. So you must be opposed to the smoking bans in bars and restaurants.
Absolutely. It is illegal and amounts to theft.
LOL !
I just don't want to breathe it. End of argument.
No doubt that if you had your way you'd ban public farting.
I agree with the use of government force to keep visible pollutants out of my air. Simple as that.
No doubt that if you had your way you'd ban public farting. Methane is a pollutant that destroys the ozone -- so they say. Cow farts contribute a measurable percentage of methane.
BTTT, I was going to post it. I live amongst the idiots in NY City and State. Bookmarked!
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.
