The Case Against Smoking Bans

The Cato Institute ^ | Thomas A. Lambert

[Eric Blair 2084]

In recent years, legal scholars have produced a voluminous literature on the rule of law in indirectly controlling social norms and individual preferences. Smoking bans provide on of the favorite "success stories" of those who laud the use of legal rules to change norms and preferences. According to these scholars, smoking bans affect behavior, even if under-enforced, because they change the social norm regarding smoking in public. With the advent of smoking bans, non-smokers who previously felt embarassed about publicly expressing their distaste for ETS are speaking up. By providing a de facto community statement that public smoking is unacceptable, the bans embolden non-smokers to confront smokers who are inconveniencing them. Facing heightened public hostility towards their habit, smokers are likely to revise their preference regarding smoking, thus by making smoking more socially costly, the theory goes, bans reduce the number of smokers.

[Eric Blair 2084]

The study is 7 pages long. If you read the whole thing, great...if not, pay attention to the section entitled "THE PREFERENCE SHAPING ARGUMENT".

Clearly the idea that Second Hand Smoke kills 2,120,098 people per day doesn't even pass the laugh test. The real number is actually 0. The bogus EPA study on ETS has been eviscerated in federal court.

That section explains to everyone, smoker and non-smoker alike, what this social engineering experiment is all about: COERCING SMOKERS TO QUIT OR NON-SMOKERS NOT TO START.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Big Brother, Nanny State, Grant Junky, Bogus Study, Junk Science, Social Engineering, Sheeple Control, Health Nazi Ping!!!

To be added to or deleted from this ping list, please send me a private message below.

To request that I stop using these gay html colors and fonts, please send me a private message below.

____________________________________________________________________

Constitution of the Left Wing Nanny State of Liberals.

Picture courtesy of unixfox. All rights reserved. Copyright MMVII. Any use of the pictures descriptions or accounts of this ping without the express written consent of unixfox, Eric Blair, or Major League Baseball is strictly prohibited. Some restrictions apply. Ping not available in all states.

Preamble:

We the People Sheeple of the United States Nanny State, in Order to form a more perfect Union Socialist Utopia, establish Justice Socially engineer a country of non smoking, physically fit, tea totallers, insure domestic Tranquility Smoking bans in bars, limits on unhealthy food and social drinking, provide for the common defense Universal Healthcare, promote the general Welfare health of the population whether they like it or not, in order to save above mentioned Universal Healthcare entitlement program from bankruptcy, and secure the Blessings of Liberty Dependency to ourselves progressive liberals and our Posterity Hitler Youth who we brainwash through public school education, do ordain decree and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Nanny State of Liberals.

[I see my hands]

"The Case Against Smoking Bans"

The Case for Smokin' Buns

[Tx Angel]

Nice tag!

[Eric Blair 2084]

But what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

[libertarian27]

I've stumbled on a phrase this week.
Neo-Communism.
Anti-smoking advocates are the neo-communists.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

THE PREFERENCE SHAPING ARGUMENT

Why not encourage smoking the way liberals encourage other behavior choices such as homosexuality? Smoking only takes a few years off of one's life. Men who decide to have sex with other men take TENS of years off of their lives yet liberals encourage children to try it. Liberalism - what a hateful ideology.

[Namyak]

There's way too much logic and sound Conservative philosophy in that study for the gnatzies to be comfortable with.

[traditional1]

The Anti-smoke Nazi's have convinced a large group on this forum about the "hazards of second-hand smoke", and those that are non-smokers here are quick to point at the smokers with disdain, ignoring the rights being violated (prepare for rants on the smell, allergies, etc. as rationales for being on the anti-smoking bandwagon here).

[xuberalles]

The ideology of liberals is so twisted it makes me laugh. So much for choice.



"Liberal Logic: Abortion is a choice...smoking is a crime!"
Bumper Sticker/T-Shirt
http://www.cafepress.com/titillatingtees.105159455

[boop]

Whew! That picture makes smoke come out of my ears! Is that a poster? I'd love to put it up in my office!

[johnthebaptistmoore]

And Michael Bloomberg may still possibly run for President in '08. Michael Bloomberg: The poster child for nanny politics!

[listenhillary]

Neo-communism google search brought up a interesting link to an article by David Horowitz.

Neo-Communism
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 22, 2003

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7396
(snip)
Chomsky is an intellectual leader of the anti-war left who has written a book with these reflections that has sold over 200,000 copies. In Chomsky’s view, the World Trade Center deaths were regrettable but the unprecedented humiliation of the imperialist power – America -- was an historic victory for social justice and human progress

[Eric Blair 2084]

Why not encourage smoking the way liberals encourage other behavior choices such as homosexuality? Smoking only takes a few years off of one's life. Men who decide to have sex with other men take TENS of years off of their lives yet liberals encourage children to try it. Liberalism - what a hateful ideology.

Great point. And it's been brought up time and time again. Sticking an HIV infected penis into another guys rectum isn't going to advance "public health". But you never see liberals calling for a ban on gay bathhouses.

Having said that, as a Libertublican (25% Libertarian, 75% Republican), I don't pass judgment on two guys who want to live together. If they're happy than Salud!, Mazaltov!, Congratulations!

You can be together but we won't call it "marriage". We'll just call you "Butt Buddies". You can have all the same rights, but instead of calling you "man and wife" we'll call you "Colon Comrades".

This way everyone is happy. The religious right can say that we have defended marriage.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Thanks for that great link BTW.

[SheLion]

Thanks for the ping!

[Eric Blair 2084]

Thank you Lioness. We're just trying to warn the non-smoking limited government conservatives who will listen...TAKE A GANDER AT WHAT YOUR FUTURE HOLDS!! That's the difference between humans and fish. Fish can't tell each other "Hey buddy, look out for the fake bait with the hook on it...it's bad news!" Humans can.

When they came for the drinkers during Prohibition, I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.

When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.

When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.

When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.

When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.

When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.

When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.

When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.

When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.

When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.

When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.

When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.

[jerry639]

The Anti-smoke Nazi's have convinced a large group on this forum about the "hazards of second-hand smoke", and those that are non-smokers here are quick to point at the smokers with disdain, ignoring the rights being violated (prepare for rants on the smell, allergies, etc. as rationales for being on the anti-smoking bandwagon here).

So, let them rant. I doubt if anyone really cares what they think. Other than other ranting anti-smokers.

[traditional1]

"I doubt if anyone really cares what they think"

Good point!

[Eric Blair 2084]

http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/pdf/tfw222.pdf

Read the anti-tobacco playbook above. The leftists in anti-tobacco don't even believe the SHS nonsense themselves. It's almost comical to listen to supposed "conservatives" defend other people's junk science and social engineering when the people spewing it know they are lying

I almost feel sorry for them. They are just the unwitting victims of a billion dollar PR campaign. There are some people on FR (and local public serpents in state legislatures) who either still believe they are dying because their roommate in college smoked or they hung out at Fraternity parties where people were smoking. More likely they are just too pigheaded to admit that it doesn't even pass the LAUGH TEST, they are not sick and will live to be 98 despite having spent their entire youth in smoky bars.

Can we please move past that nonsense and discuss why the former SG/AZ day spa employee would think people were stupid enough to believe the press releases? And how they will they use social engineering against obesity and drinking?