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.
Seeing as smoking ban laws (at least in this country) are passed by local government (the type of government most beloved by conservatives), it's tough to see how these laws would fall under this definition: there's no dictatorial government here (since these laws are passed by democratically-elected town councils, the people are free to elect new politicians who will reverse these laws), there's no centralization of private enterprise (government regulation does not equal centralization) and the other stuff (repression of opposition etc.) clearly does not apply.
When you are so deep in the hole there are only two ways to go, climb out, or do what you are doing, keep digging. Next stop, China.
Really. So, how is a local ordinance, passed by a democratically elected local governmental entity, equal to the centralization of private enterprise?
They're also at the state level. Florida and California come to mind.
No, it's just plain English, unlike your attempts to redefine 'fascist', 'dictatorial', and 'centralized'. Government enforcement of contracts made by businesses is most certainly a form of control of the business.
Thanks, but it apparently doesn't matter, since they if they don't like the meaning of the words making up the definition, they'll just redefine those as well.
Now what recent president does that remind me of?
On another note, and quite embarrassingly here in California, certain beaches have recently voted to be smoke-free. I wish I could say I was kidding.Of all the possible crimes the police should have to enforce, this really takes the cake.
Sure. They're not some directive passed by the Ministry of Social Hygiene or whatever. They represent local polities passing laws. These laws can easily be reversed if the people complain enough or elect new politicians. Are they stupid laws? Maybe. But having to suffer democratically passed stupid laws does not equal fascism.
soph·is·try
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
Libertarianism by definition is the absence of initiation of force, the threat of force or fraud. It is painfully obvious that requiring licenses to conduct business on private property, under threat of force is not libertarian in nature.
Had you not known this, your statement would be based in ignorance. Being a "right wing professor", I assumed you knew better so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and dubbed it sophistry. Was I incorrect, and it was simply ignorance? If so, my apologies.
unlike your attempts to redefine 'fascist'
My definition of fascist in post #33 corresponds to the MSN Encarta online dictionary's definition given in post #316. Furthermore, my post #300 shows smoking bans to be historic behavior of classic fascist nations.
'dictatorial', and 'centralized'
I have not referred to these terms on this thread.
Government enforcement of contracts made by businesses is most certainly a form of control of the business.
But contracts based on the threat of force if one uses one's own private property without a license is not libertarianism, which is what we're discussing. Then again, you already knew that.
With a $250 fine. And California just happens to be in a budget crisis. What an amazing coincidence!
Of all the possible crimes the police should have to enforce, this really takes the cake.
This has nothing to do with crime. They're collecting taxes.
In your libertarian utopia, any governmental regulation of business equals fascism. Too bad so few people agree with you.
100 people are on an island. They hold a vote and the majority decides to adopt "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", as the basis for all their laws.
Are they communists, or democrats? D(d)emocratic socialists, perhaps?
There is no utopia and the only one who has ever mentioned libertarians is you and the goofy pretend professor. It's an attempt to change the subject, but it won't work.
any governmental regulation of business equals fascism.
You made that up. You lied. No shock there.
Too bad so few people agree with you.
Hmmmm, on this thread it's you and goofy against FreeRepublic.
Assuming that their system of government is some type of republic/democracy, they're democratic socialists. Keep in mind, there're nothing in the US Constitution preventing us from becoming a communist nation tomorrow. The government COULD nationalize all industry (so long as it paid for it) and set tax rates at an extremely high level so as to facilitate re-distribution of wealth. Such a system doesn't hold much appeal for the American people, though.
Could have fooled me.
What kind of governmental regulation are you okay with, then?
Hmmmm, on this thread it's you and goofy against FreeRepublic.
Libertarians are a distinct minority on FR. Rightfully so- your ideas don't work in the real world.
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.