Smoking bans cloud free market's ability to thrive

BlueGrass Institute ^ | 9-28-05 | By Aaron Morris

[SheLion]

[SheLion]

[highlymotivated]

I personally could care LESS if someone smokes.

I DO NOT want to smell it or breathe it in, nor do I want
ONE DOLLAR of tax money to pay for their health care. You smoke, you get cancer, you die. Oh well. The gov't has no business telling ADULTS how to live anyway.

[E Rocc]

There's two key points that prove that the whole "protect the workers" smoking ban is a fraud.

1) Most of these busybody laws fine not the smokers, but the bars themselves. The employees being "protected" are stuck enforcing said protection. There's already one documented death from this.

2) The bans are portrayed as "occupational safety" rules but ignore the concept of Permissable Exposure Limit (PEL), the cornerstone of all workplace chemical exposure regulations.

One of the few non-smoking bar employees with occupational safety management experience,

-Eric

[right right]

Smoking bans do not bother me personally because I do not smoke or want to smell someone elses smoke. The reason to oppose these bans is what will they ban next. What legal act will they tell a private business they cannot allow. They will continue come up with something new and eventually get us all.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"What legal act will they (next) tell a private business they cannot allow? They will continue come up with something new and eventually get us all."

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

~ Author Unknown

[CSM]

Good article. Wonder what comments you'll get from the FR gnatzies.

[LucyT]

There are several versions of this well-known statement, and is attributed to the German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller.

The following is said, by someone who heard him speak at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decautur GA in 1959 (or 1960), to be what he actually said:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

On 2005-07-11 a reader sent this message:

Please allow me to say that the Niemöller quote you have is not correct. The Nazi party did not come for the Jews until last.

Correctly the order is Communist, Socialist,Trade Unionist,then Jews, then Pastor Niemoller.
Thank you.

[America First Libertarian]

Well I am sure there will be a myriad of contradiction, I'm willing to bet someone will be vocal on the ban, but support the war on drugs.

[SheLion]

Good article. Wonder what comments you'll get from the FR gnatzies.

Yep!

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Thanks, Lucy. Welcome to FR, BTW. ;)

[metesky]

It looks like the gnatzies are either sleeping or starting to get the picture.

I guess when your argument is reduced to, "Eeeoow! Stinky poo!", you're SOL.

[Mears]

I couldn't agree with you more.

If you DON'T smoke and get cancer and die I don't want any of my tax dollars paying for your health car either.

In fact,I don't want to pay for anyone's heallth care except my own and my family's.

So there!!!!

[The Foolkiller]

Apparently, you missed the FIRST response in the thread.

[The Foolkiller]

Here we go again. I'm really getting sick of this straw man argument. It's brought up on EVERY smoking thread, and been hashed out before. I'm saying it again...the very SAME people who have made smokers more hated than Osama Bin Laden are the ones who want to legalize ALL OTHER drugs.

[Just another Joe]

The science of the effects of secondhand smoke is not as sharply defined as the health risk assumed by smokers themselves. However, it is obvious that secondhand smoke does have certain negative consequences.

While the range and degree of these repercussions may be debatable, the policy reactions to the professed dangers of secondhand smoke are becoming legendary. The dangers ascribed to secondhand smoke are rapidly transforming a previously private choice into a public-health decision open to government regulation.

I only had to read to here before I knew that this writer was biased toward the anti's point of view.
They may say they want the free market to be left alone to work the way it's supposed to, this alone points to their bias. They don't like smoking.

And once again, While the intentions of smoking-ban advocates are certainly noble, their methods and procedures are simply misinformed and fall prey to the myth that regulations can remedy society’s ills and fix a market that knows it is not broken.
The writer's bias shows through. Noble? To quote someone, "It is to laugh".

This person may have the right ideas about letting the free market work but their bias shows through just like a black slip under a sheer white dress.

[America First Libertarian]

And who are these people?

[Madame Dufarge]

One such policy is Great Britain’s “Public Places Charter,” which requires the posting of clear and obvious signage that informs employees and consumers about an establishment’s smoking status. This transparent system identifies the establishments that prohibit smoking, those that offer no protection to nonsmokers and those that have separate areas or ventilation systems.

Most establishments in the US had this policy (remember, "Smoking or non-smoking?")

However, this wasn't good enough for the Gnatzi's.

Too much is never enough for your dyed-in-the-wool control freak.

[SheLion]

Too much is never enough for your dyed-in-the-wool control freak.

No one could have said this better, Madame Dufarge.

[at bay]

First they came for no smoker, never have never will.

In the original German version they actually CAME AND DISAPPEARED THE PEOPLE

The nico addicts just love hyperbole. They are not thinking straight, anymore than crack addicts or tweakers (meth users) are. They are clueless how the addiction has affected their thinking. Their brains crave a substance many of the addicts are powerless to resist. If they would only convert to non-chewable snuff for the most part their lives would be spared. I know many that never made it to 40. Smoking is insanity and all smokeable products should rightly be banned by ay responsible government. Responsible governments do not allow poison to be sold to be ingested.

It ain't a civil rights issue. Never was, never will be.