The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment

CNSNews.com ^ | May 26, 2003 | Robert W. Tracinski

[tpaine]

We quote the constitution. You rant.

[Roscoe]

We quote the constitution.

He quotelessly asserted.

[Trace21230]

"I can't stand it when I walk into a public bathroom and some smoker has pee'd all over the seat and than some other guy in stall two went number two and made it stinky really bad. And something that really upsets me is when people throw their trash on the streets and sidewalks ... and what about the people that spit in water fountains and people that spit on the sidewalk and people that drive cars that burn oil and oh so many other things. It is a very hard country to live in. Oh and one more thing, what about those guys at the bar that belch? When I go into a bar, I don't want to be around people who drink and smoke! When I go to a strip club I shouldn't have to put up with people walking around undressed! IT IS SICKENING!"

I think you should invest in a gigantic plastic bubble, like the ones hamsters run around in.

Then you can be insulated from all the horrible things that seem to offend your delicate sensibilities.

Perhaps the government can help you.

Trace

[tpaine]

Roscoe:
"Like sodomy"



You've never engaged in sodomy?
159 -jmc813-


"I'm not a Libertarian."
160 -roscoe-


Good point 813, -- asexual by default?

-- Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[jmc813]

I'm not a Libertarian.

Neither am I, but I engage in sodomy frequently with my girlfriend.

[maryz]

I was accused of stooping to an all time low of trivializing the health hazards of working in a smoke-filled environment.

Check out today's Wall Street Journal if you can -- I didn't bring it with me, but there's a letter to the editor written by a guy who did a study of second-hand smoke back in the 70s; he found that an hour in a smoke-filled environment (remember -- back in the 70s, when you could smoke pretty much freely) was the equivalent of smoking .0004 of a cigarette (yes, three zeroes after the decimal).

In case you were wondering, the study was financed by the American Lung Association, which promptly dropped in a drawer (or the circular file?). It was, needless to say, never publicized.

Oh, and the author of the study -- and the letter -- doesn't and didn't smoke.

[Just another Joe]

Oooohhh, wish we could find that study.

[Bogey]

I think smokers should have to wear a bubble helmet. That way they can breathe the smoke they enjoy so much 24/7.

---

Only if you direct your car exhaust back into your car, with the windows up. Your rights to expel exhaust stop at my nose.

[Don W]

That's EASY! All rights NOT listed in the constitution are reserved to the state, OR THE INDIVIDUAL. NOT the fedgov.

[americanSoul]

George Jonas, a conservative free-market advocate journalist and writer, who is rigorous regarding his facts, said recently in the National Post (Canada):

If you assign a risk factor of 1 for someone in the general population developing lung cancer then (based on a 40 yr. study of some 140,000 people where one spouse smoked and the other not):

non-smoking spouse's risk of developing lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke is 1.68

AND, the risk of developing lung cancer from eating potato chips is 6.4!

Maybe the nanny statists should ban potato chips.

[americanSoul]

You will find him here:

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/

[Semper]

Your freedom ends where mine begins and vice-versa. I am not forcing you to smoke, so where do you get off trying to force me NOT to smoke, either directly or by calling upon government to violate my freedom for your supposed benefit??

You can smoke all you want as long as it does not impact me. If you never receive taxpayer funded healthcare for your smoking-caused health problems - fine. If your exhaled or ambient smoke does not get into my lungs - fine.

One of the important functions of government is to resolve conflicts between individual rights. Everyone should have the freedom to do stupid things - to give up their freedom to an addiction - to engage in destructive self-gratification or whatever, as long as it does not degrade the quality of life of others. Smoking in public common areas thereby forcing people to smell and breath the unwanted and unhealthy results of your addiction falls within the purview of government regulation. You can't play your music as loud as you want anywhere you want whenever you want - there are laws against that and music does not cause cancer or heart disease.

[nobdysfool]

Smoking in public common areas thereby forcing people to smell and breath the unwanted and unhealthy results of your addiction falls within the purview of government regulation

Ah, but there is a difference between a public common area, like a government building, etc. and a private business which, in the conduct of their business does business with the public. Restaurants and bars are most definitely private businesses, and as such are free to allow or disallow whatever they wish, and should be able to do so without government regulation, especially when the business will be negatively impacted by said government regulation. Impeding the abilty of a legitimate business to conduct their business and make a profit (which is what restaurants and bars are in business to do) is not a legitimate function of government.

This is an area where the market should sort itself out. Restaurants that don't want to cater to smokers are fine, as are bars, but it should be the owner's choice, not a government edict that makes it so. Non-smokers can and will frequent those places, and smokers will frequent places where they are welcome. Expecting and demanding that government favor non-smokers over smokers is wrong. Expecting and demanding that government make all places of business favorable to non-smokers is to marginalize one group of citizens to benefit another. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it won't work for tobacco, not because it wasn't implemented properly when it was against alcohol, but because it's a BAD IDEA!