IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

[VRWC_minion]

One day, and take my word, it won't be long, they're going to rain on your parade.

At least I won't be having a nicotine fit trying to keep my cig lit in the rain.

[jwh_Denver]

*Smoking tobacco (or pot) ought to be legal in one's home and a jailable offense outside it.

Frankly cc, you are an idiot.

[timm22]

We outlawed those just like we should outlaw the wretched tobacco weed, as dangerous a drug as any that have gone before... Pot and tobacco are both filthy and dangerous, and anyone who uses tobacco is just as bad as someone who smokes pot. They ought not to be allowed to corrupt other people's children into the drug-addicted lifestyle, nor to blow their disgusting drug smoke into the air where other people have to breathe it... Does anyone doubt that these pathetic junkies would commit crime to feed their addiction if they couldn't afford to pay for their smokes? (That's why I think tobacco ought to remain legal while one is in one's own home.) ... Why do you assume I use anything? There are other ways to relax than using drugs, dear. Though I wouldn't expect a drug-addled junkie to know that...

I am perplexed as to how someone could have such hatred for a plant (tobacco).

I also find it frightening how so many anti-smokers like to use dehumanizing language when talking about smokers (“bad, pathetic, drug-addled junkies”). There are some habits I find annoying, but I don’t feel anything close to the level of hatred some anti-smokers feel towards people who smoke.

[timm22]

It is the American way. Your in denail that this trend can be reversed. Its a done deal.

That may be the case, but I believe the general theme of this thread is “what should be,” and not “what is,” in regards to smoking laws. Smoking bans may be a “done deal,” but that does not make them practical or moral.

The major chains want the laws changed and the end result will be increased profits for everyone in the business because maintaining the staffing and the equipemt for providing smoking and nonsmoking sections will be eliminated and with a state wide ban the income will remain the same.

If it will lead to increased profits for everyone in the business, why must the government be involved? Can’t the owners simply ban smoking in their own restaurants?

Of course, the truth is not everyone will benefit from this law. In some establishments, smokers may make up a considerable portion of the customers. A smoking ban will weaken or eliminate these establishments. The major chains are using the power of government to eliminate competition. Do you not think that is wrong, and against the free-market system our country is supposed to have?

[timm22]

My point exactly. If you want to smoke your demon weed in the confines of your own house, or piss in your own pool, go right ahead.

Tobacco is not evil- its an inanimate object.

But if you think you can build a swimming pool, open it to the public, charge admission, and then put up a sign saying "Pissing Permitted" or "Pissing zone at east end of the pool", then you have another think coming, courtesy of the county health department.

No one is denying the existence of public health regulations. What is being discussed is the appropriateness or morality of these regulations.

How is this different from keeping disgusting, unsafe tobacco smoke out of restaurants and bars? Private homes are not the same as restaurants and other public accomodations. This has been settled law for decades.

I believe you pointed out in an earlier post that slavery and wife beating were once legal. Obviously, the law is not always right.

No serious Republican challenges the right of local governments to regulate filth in public swimming pools or spoiled food in restaurants. Nor should they object when the public decides they are sick of having smoke junkies polluting the air in bars and restaurants.

If you disagree, based on your own weak-willed dependence on nicotine, then maybe you ought to leave the Republicans and join your fellow drug addicts in the Libertarian Party.

This may surprise you, but not every conservative is a Republican. Furthermore, not every Republican is a conservative.

[timm22]

So, the general public benefits in that the cost of their meals is lower and they don't have to subsidize the added costs of providing a smoking section.

I was under the assumption that conservatives were against using the government to control prices and transfer wealth.

[SheLion]

Please add me to your puff list...... Gotcha added. Thanks so much!

[SheLion]

At this point, I'm not sure WHAT you posted.

Are you with us or against us???

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Amen SheLion. We're in a fight from hell down here in Florida.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Hey, damn, I wish I had seen our friend "ccmay" (Communist Crazy about May) online.

I think that ugly stupid people should be put up against the wall and shot. If that gets passed down here in Florida cc, I would suggest major plastic surgery before visiting our state.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Give it up with ccmay. He's a facist with communist leanings. He could care less about your freedoms. He's only concerned about those that affect his ability to hug trees and donate to Jerry Brown out in Commiefornia.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" Telling "someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property" is exactly how a community organizes and protects itself."

Then you have just dictated the basic tenant of socialism which is that no property is "private" but is part of the community or commune.

"A person either wants community to a more or lesser extent or he doesn't want community at all. Most people freely choose to want community to some extent. And they decide, under a set of cultural and constitutional rules, to what extent."

So according to you, if a community passes a law restricting a businessman who owns a fabric shop to sell only red fabric, then he must abide by that. And if he does so at a loss, because he opened the business before said law was passed, he must accept the loss because another law was passed banning all businesses from closing. Your logic is purely Hegelian. And quite Leninist. Read your history.

"That's why the community will punish you if you use your private property to shoot and kill or wound your neighbor or a stranger on a street. That's why the community will punish you if you drive your private automobile into a pedestrian who is "following the accepted rules."

A non-starter. You are basically comparing the "use" of private property against another individual. A business (for example a bar) is open to all individuals, but no one is forced to go in there and endure any smoke which might be in the air. There are other businesses which offer the same services without smoking. But if there are not, you are saying since there are not, and because you as an individual, a non-capitalist who is too lazy to start a competeting, non-smoking establishment, have the right to deny the entrepreneur the right to profit and to run the establishment within the established laws before you came along. Wow, what a facistic communistic view you have. Congrats. You've got your degree in Stalinism now.

"All laws put people on notice of ways their conduct is restricted and that, if they violate those restrictions, they're liable to punishment."

So according to you, all fast food places must be closed down as they are harmful. All liquour stores shut down. All wine and beer banned. All red meat banned. All chemically enhanced or treated produce, processed foods, or foods not deemed 100% healthy by the medical profession must be banned. SUV's, luxury sedans, banned. Nice list. You must have this desire to live in 1970 Albania. And what a sucessful model for society that was.

"How those laws are made, how those restrictions are decided, is the key issue. By fiat? Edict? Representative vote? While the founding fathers professed "limited government," acceptable limits change and the community reflects that. The founding fathers accepted slavery and wrote it into the Constitution with the infamous 3/5ths clause. Most of us don't. The founding fathers accepted "indirect" election of Senators. Most of us don't. The list goes on."

According to your rules though, we have the right to ban individuals whose lifestyles are abhorrent to us from our "community". In other words, if in the village of Facistville, two lesbian couples move in and they appall the residents, we would have the right to have a vote and they would be banned from working or being seen in public during limited hours of the day. 1984 or worse. Simply amazing.

"Are smoking bans in public spaces beyond the extent that we want community? Not, apparently, for some people. A medical and legal argument can be made that all people exposed to tobacco smoke are harmed, including those not smoking."

Yes, but this goes against the equal treatment under the law principle. If I object to fat people because they are a drain on our community and ruin it's appearance, your logic gives me the right to have them banished or worse. Pure Stalinism.

"A political argument can be made that I am harmed when you smoke in the privacy of your home -- if I and others are then liable to pay for the treatment of your smoking-related illnesses. Why should I be barred from restricting your conduct in this instance and then forced to pay for the consequences of your conduct?"

Why should I be barred? Hmmm, according to your logic, I should be able to ping JR, and have you banned from this board for being a facist. But being a true objectivist Libertarian, I just ignore your opinion and shoot it down with logic. You are basically wanting a 100% government controlled and maintained society. If you really want that, please, publish your name and address and I PERSONALLY will take a portion of my profits and purchase the visa and tickets to relocate you to North Korea. It's what you really want, so don't be shy.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

TJ, I addressed it point by point. I'm late to the party but wow, did I have to respond to that weirdo. It must be something in the water because the Stalinists are out in force today.

[lodwick]

Good G*d - and bttt

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" In fact tobacco is far more addictive than pot and maybe ought to be treated more harshly."

If you really believe 10 percent of the nonsense you spew, you really should just go out and pester your demoratic representative to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning tobacco. Until then, just stay away from my state. We have enough problems with real communists and facists 90 miles south of us. We don't need the make pretend or wannabe-commies coming into the state in any larger numbers than they already have.

[ccmay]

Obviously, if a law allows Utah to shoot smokers and confiscate their property, we do NOT have due process.

Actually, if the legal processes of arrest, arraignment, indictment, trial, conviction, and sentencing are conducted in accordance with statute, there is no due process violation.

There might be an appeal under the "cruel and unusual punishment" provisions of the Bill of Rights, in the Eighth Amendment if I recall correctly, but the way jurisprudence in the realm of drug law is developing, I wouldn't bet my life on it.

-ccm

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"Exactly; or more to the point, in case your comment is too subtle for the average smoker: Having a smoking-allowed area in a restaurant is like having a p*ssing-allowed area in a swimming pool!"

Much more appropriate is establishing smoking only retraunts and banning non-smokers. That way the whining would be reduced and the facists can continue to enjoy their McDonald's or Burger King luxury meals while we enjoy our steak, caviar and fine cigars.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"This is an economic movement and not a rights movement. I agree that various groups have common ground but if it were not for the big restaurant chains to be for state wide bans."

If you truely believe that you are on crack. This is not an economics movement. This is a movement initiated by the healthnazis, the same group that wants to ban alcohol, SUVs, checmically treated produce, red meat, fast food, junk food, soda pop, and on and on. If you really believe that, you need to go back to your party meeting and get your Sierra Club speaking points updated. Or your Himmler speaking points. Or Stalin. Or whoever it is your getting your material from. That comment is utter nonsense. This is an extension of the pc movement and you know it.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"Thats majority rule. Unless smoking were specifically protected by the constitution like guns, the press, speech, religion etc then its perfectly alright for the majority to ban it."

I like that now. Based on your logic, 20 of us need to ping JR and we can have you banned. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.