Posted on 02/06/2007 4:41:36 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
Choice? Gay men usually say they can't chose who they're sexually attracted to (just as most straight men have absolutely no attraction to men). Of course, they can choose celibacy, but to not have sex? That's pretty tough. Now compare to smoking. That's not exactly a choice either for many smokers. I know smokers who tell me they tried to quit and a year later, the cravings never went away. Smoking is, yes, addictive.
We should be blessed in numbers, but you are right, it's still 50/50. When polled (and we know how reliable that is) American citizens overwelmingly claim that they want LESS government.
In reality, it seems that some are only too happy to vote for the guy/gal who promises the most largesse from the public treasury. In exchange, they are willing to let the Gubmint then tell them:
If somebody wants to be a "ward of the state", go right ahead. But if you want "free" healthcare than you have to live by their rules. It's their money.
I can take care of myself, thank you.
I'm a nonsmoker and, in the right environment like a music bar, I like smokiness. There is supposed to be a haze between you and the band. If you smell afterwords, wash your clothes and take a shower. Since Minneapolis banned smoking in bars I miss the atmosphere the smoke provided. The chance of such smoke harming my health in any way is about one tenth the risk that loud music poses. Maybe we should ban that too, huh? I mean isn't it obvious that the human ear was not meant to endure what a night of rock and roll will do to it. Oh that's right, if you don't like loud music, and are concerned about it's health effect, you don't go where it's offered. Seems simple enough.
Being anti-smoking is being pro-life.
Being anti-smoking the way you describe it is being a naive to the rest of the agenda of your fellow prohibitionists.
Yes, "usually" is the key word. The ex-gay men don't say that at all. Although their behavior choices don't to count when activists want to say that acting out in homosexual manners is genetic. Some of the bestiality people say the same thing as well - "it's genetic what we want to have sex with so legalize and endorse it."
Thanks for the ping!
"Read at work tomorrow" BUMP!
See, the thing with smoke gnatzies such as you is that sooner or later (usually sooner) they revert to third grade arguments about farts or peeing in the pool or some other juvenile chit.
Grow up and then get back to us.
Neatly demolishes all the smoking Nazis' arguments, not that this will have the slightest effect on the snivel factor.
How are the personal choices other adults make any of your business?
My 'limited' knowledge of neo-communism
http://www.individualistvoice.com/vazsonyi.html
When these personal choices pollute the air I breathe, it becomes my business. I believe in laws that promote public safety, and banning smoking makes the public safer. You smokers make "the right to smoke" into some righteous conservative cause like firearms ownership, but you are just like liberals who change the methods of interpretation when going from the first amendment to the second. They way you try to rationalize your addictions is really quite pathetic. If another adult made the personal choice to assault you Madame Dufarge, wouldn't that be your business? Assault is much more extreme than secondhand smoke, but the principle is the same. I won't even get into the drug differences and fart arguments, because it's just too easy to counter these silly rationalizations.
It's as if the author had you specfically in mind.
We don't have a "right to smoke" but a property owner SHOULD have the "right" to allow a legal commodity to be used on his property.
A legal commodity that has NOT been proven to cause any harm to an otherwise normal healthy human in normal situations.
Nice post.
I'm always confused by something also.
I'm confused by anti-smoking/nannystatist freepers who support smoking bans because they believe they have a right to be completely comfortable and not offended 24/7/365. Living in a free society and respecting individual liberty means living with things you may not like or that may be inconvenient. Living in a police state I believe would present daily inconveniences that are more intense than expereincing a bad smell occasionally. That's clearly the road people who support govt. enforced morality at the point of a gun.
But if you want "free" healthcare than you have to live by their rules. It's their money.
one small clarification. It's thier money only after they take it from us by force first.
Your argument seems to be based on the fallacy that secondhand smoke is not unhealthy. Having smoke dectectors and exhaust fans in a building is a good thing. Every time information is presented about the dangers of secondhand smoke, you smokers attack it as "junk science" to justify your addictions.
Smoking is a dangerous addiction that kills people. Secondhand smoke is not just a bad smell that makes you uncomfortable. It's toxic. Your argument is just more silly rationalization.
...When these personal choices pollute the air I breathe, it becomes my business. I believe in laws that promote public safety, and banning smoking makes the public safer...
I want to enjoy a fireplace and heat my house with a wood stove too, the government is going after those too.
Pretty soon you will only know a fire from a DVD placed into your TV's DVD player.
This isn't just about smoking tobacco.
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.