Posted on 03/30/2004 7:27:23 AM PST by ijcr
Ireland smoke-free will never be at peace, to rather disrespectfully paraphrase the famous rhetorical avowal of its dead, non-smoking teetotaller patriot Padraic Pearse. Or so it seems right now, anyway, a matter of hours into what some are describing as a seismic cultural shift.
In recent weeks one felt that many of Ireland's smoking classes were in a state of outright denial at the impending introduction of Europe's first ban on smoking in the workplace. Now, facing into an era of smoke spies and freephone snitch lines, such hype seems to be rather less fanciful than at first appeared.
For here is a law that, like the civil war of 82 years ago, has set brother against brother. And it is in Ireland's pubs, the traditional repository of the hundred thousand welcomes, that the smoking ban finds its most contentious arena.
The lunchtime trade yesterday in the north-west tourist town of Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim, manifested the same complex range of divisions as exist everywhere else. At about 2pm, in the Poitin Stil, on Carrick's main street, a woman got up from her stool at the counter and announced that, in deference to the new regime, she now had to go outside for a fag.
A nearby supporter of the smoking ban, who later boasted that for 20 years he had specialised in drawing official attention to contraventions of smoking bans on trains and buses, urged her to embrace the new health-giving atmosphere and discount all thought of narrow personal inconvenience.
"Why must we be the guinea pigs of Europe?" the smoker demanded. "Why must we be first in line to demonstrate our subservience? This is all that cursed EU. If Hitler could have foreseen that it was this easy to bring the people of Europe to their knees, he might never have bothered going all around the houses!"
According to the manager of The Oarsman on Bridge Street, many tourists from places like Germany and the Netherlands have already pledged not to return to Ireland under a smoking ban.
The greatest indigenous incomprehension is likely to arise from the older clientele of the more traditional rural pub, where the same stools have been occupied by the same posteriors since Adam came of age. The idea that outside forces have intruded on what for many drinkers is a fundamental element of their recreational existence is one even the most ardent pro-ban bartenders do not look forward to trying to get across.
As a lifelong non-smoker, I find myself in an odd position. It arises, I believe, from more than the widespread belief that the smoking ban is the thin end of an insidious wedge which will enable the fun police to encroach on more and more aspects of our lives.
The ban, far from being a positive social instrument, will make social life that little bit weaker. Do I, as a non-smoker, have a right to dictate to my smoking fellow-citizens that they can only consort with me if they are prepared to see things my way?
What is most worrying about the debate is that it has ended, uniquely among bar-room debates, with a trophy being awarded. The non-smokers have won. I am not as happy about that as a year ago I thought I would be.
Look in the mirror, my friend.
Incorrect again. It has been defined on this thread many times.
In terms of education, I don't think you want to start comparing educations here. I'm pretty sure you'll lose.
Damn, you have a long losing streak going.
There, there. No need to throw a hissy fit. Trust me, I doubt you're selling anything I would have an interest in buying.
Good, so you don't want to go to resturants. Great, now you can stop your cowardly hiding behind government thugs since you have no interest in the smoking on private property issue.
Anyway, like I said before, if I had a court order, you WOULD accomodate me, whether you like it or not.
You would never be accomodated by me, no matter what happened with the thugs. It would be impossible for you to enjoy the court order.
Interesting. This had more to do with Hitler's whacky clean-living ideas than anything else. Plus, even in terms of fascist systems, the Nazis were extremist (or, extremist extremists). This wasn't really something espoused by the "average" fascist system.
That was why I explained the definition of fascism. I was not calling you a fascist to be insulting, but to demonstrate that your desire to have government control over private business was fascist. I am not calling you a Nazi or anything like that. Yes, the term 'fascist' has negative connotations and is the refuge of those without reason. However, that was not my intent. I was using the term in its dictionary definition to describe you desires in this one particular issue.
It's been defined by you. Your definitions, like most things that come out of your mouth, are bogus.
since you have no interest in the smoking on private property issue
I have no real interest in smoking bans, one way or the other. I do enjoy getting libertarians riled up, though. It's like watching Lyndon LaRouche supporters foam at the mouth.
You would never be accomodated by me, no matter what happened with the thugs. It would be impossible for you to enjoy the court order.
If you defied a court order, you'd be in jail. Court orders are enforced by the county Sheriff. Trust me on this one- if your business is in a jurisdiction that bans smoking and you continue to ignore the law after receving a court order, you're the one who would find yourself on the street, in jail or (if you decided to try and live out your Rambo fantasies when the sheriff came) dead.
Troll. No one is surprised.
you're the one who would find yourself on the street, in jail or (if you decided to try and live out your Rambo fantasies when the sheriff came) dead.
I guess you brought it up, now figure out who.
I see. It was all a big coincidence.
The "strong healthy German" theme was central to the Nazi ideology. It is no secret of history that Germans were repeatedly told they had an obligation to their country to be the best they could be.
'Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer' were the words used to convey this thought. The people were one, that meant no individuality. It meant that your body was not your own, that you had a responsibility to others to keep it healthy.
This anti-individuality is a defining characteristic of fascism, no matter where it has occured. And anti-smoking campaigns are a natural extention of that.
even in terms of fascist systems, the Nazis were extremist (or, extremist extremists)
I agree, which is why I'm not calling anti-smokers Nazis. However I don't care for fascism in any of its hideous forms. And government control of private property is by definition fascism, as detailed in my post #33.
Fascist
adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
Fascism
fascism n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
Source - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Amusing he thinks you can deport US citizens. Not much of a libertarian.
Hey Prof, do you want an actual bar or a restaurant?
BTW, I never said I could deport a US citizen. I'm merely picking up on your theme of violating individual rights when it suits a purpose. It was tongue in cheek, but it sailed right over your "professorial" head.
It's what he does. I suspect he's constipated.
Before I call you a liar (which would not, of course, be insulting), please refer me to a single published dictionary that defines 'fascist' as 'advocating government regulation of private business'.
Every governemnt in the world, bar none, regulates private business to some degree. Ergo, according to your mythical dictionary, every government in the world is fascist.
Which lets Mussolini and Hitler off the hook, doesn't it?
From MSN Encarta online dictionary:
fas•cism or Fas•cism noun dictatorial movement: any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
Are you going to tell me that a government that dictates what one can or can't do with his private business regarding a legal activity is not 'dictatorial'? 'Centralized control' does not refer strictly to the monetary aspects of a business. Control exerted over a private enterprise's ability to make its own decisions regarding a legal activity sure sounds like it fits the above definition. I grant you that you aren't desirous of repressing all opposition to your nonsmoking bars, so maybe your views are just slightly fascist. Once again, I am not calling you a fascist, just your opinion in this matter.
Yes. It is not dictatorial to apply reasonable regulations to business, for the protection of the public. Every government in the world does this. By your definition, every government in the world is fascist. In fact,since even libertarians insist that governments enforce contracts, which is certainly a control of business, libertarians are fascists.
By the way, once smoking in a bar is banned, it's not a legal activity, is it?
'Centralized control' does not refer strictly to the monetary aspects of a business. Control exerted over a private enterprise's ability to make its own decisions regarding a legal activity sure sounds like it fits the above definition.
How is a community setting its own standards 'centralized'?
You're playing with the meanings of words. That's charlatanry. Note that I am not calling you a charlatan.
This is sophistry. Libertarians hold that governments should enforce voluntarily entered contracts.
I know you'll say the business owner voluntarily entered into a contract when he applied for a license to do business in the community. This is where your theory departs from libertarianism, which holds that the business owner requires no license to do business on his own property. Requiring licenses for an activity that does not initiate force or fraud, under threat of force is most certainly not libertarianism. And enforcing such contracts isn't libertarianism either.
Did you really think we wouldn't take notice of that absurd claim?
fas•cism or Fas•cism noun dictatorial movement: any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
Bears repeating to charlatans.
Why not? He apparently thought no one would notice the previous 15 or 20.
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.