NJ: Federal court should rescind smoking ban

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | March 9, 2006

[SheLion]

Awaiting your response with much excitement...

It started in New York.  Collecting taxes from smokers who, to avoid the high taxes, bought cigarettes off of the Internet.

Now, smokers in Illinois and Michigan are being turned in as well.  But now, these people are getting very mad and are writing letters and not just turning over their money out of fear.

They are making the government account for what they are doing, and not just taking them at their word. 

[gondramB]

You both make analogies with regard to cars and cigarettes and that's not a bad thing to do but there are differences.

One difference is that vehicles are essential for the modern economy and needs to be protected in a way that drug use does not not.

Vehicles are also useful for traveling in public whereas smoking can be done in private. Nictotine addicts can even use nicotine in public if they will just choose a format that doesn't hurt other people.

I am not anti-smoking. But like sex and drink and pot and every other personal indulgence it should not be inflicted on nonconsenting people.

[Bogey]

This is really interesting! Thanks for posting this!


My pleasure. :)

[Publius6961]

This is the only drug and drug residue that is routinely applied to people who don't want it.

You are walking proof that:

1. Mental illness is rampant in this country; and
2. The human mind is a most powerful thing.

If you think that being able to detect the odor of burning tobacco is harmful to you, it will be.
The question then becomes: can the government address every mental illness in the country?

[gondramB]

That wasn't very nice.

Tobacco smoke clings to everything around it.

[Bogey]

You both make analogies with regard to cars and cigarettes and that's not a bad thing to do but there are differences.

One difference is that vehicles are essential for the modern economy and needs to be protected in a way that drug use does not not.

---

What does that have to do with the damage to others you are causing? Who gave you the right to injure innocent people, because you're too lazy to be inconvienced?
You're far more selfish than any smoker.
People can choose not to frequent a particular restaurant.
They can't get away from your toxic fumes, unless they stay inside all day.

"Dr. Sletten describes health impacts from gasoline vehicles, including reduction in lung function and lung tissue damage, exacerbation of lung disease including asthma and emphysema, and various forms of cancer. Air pollution particularly impacts the elderly, infants and children, and those already suffering from lung disease."

[Publius6961]

This is the only drug and drug residue that is routinely applied to people who don't want it.

No it is not!

There are also perfumes, obnoxious body odors and transmittable infection germs. How much are those taxed?

[Publius6961]

Private owners who don't want that don't have to become places of public accomodation.

Then why are proposals to make them private clubs routinely rejected?

[gondramB]

"What does that have to do with the damage to others you are causing?"

We put up with costs when they are essential the modern economy. If we did away with cars and trucks a lot more than 20,000 people would die from the resulting economic crisis.

Drilling oil is another example. It's messy, polluting and disrupts wild life. But any right minded person is in favor on continuing oil production and expanding carefully because the alternatives are worse.

Nictotine consumption, on the other hand can be continued without the harm that comes from smoking cigarettes next to people who don't want it.

[SheLion]

One difference is that vehicles are essential for the modern economy and needs to be protected in a way that drug use does not not.

Do you not realize that drugs are illegal and cigarettes are not?  Why do you constantly spew that cigarettes make us drug users.  You are way off base here.

Smoking cigarettes will never make me all spaced out in the head like drugs!

I have friends that can't start their days without a Pepsi.  Does that make them drug users????  They are addicted to Pepsi, so I guess you think they too, are druggies.

[Bogey]

We put up with costs when they are essential the modern economy.

---

You mean like the 280 billion being paid for with cigarette taxes?

[gondramB]

Me:"Private owners who don't want that don't have to become places of public accomodation."

Publius:"Then why are proposals to make them private clubs routinely rejected?"


My guess would be that there are people who oppose smoking because they want to control other people and/or get unhappy whenever the government can't control some aspect of life. They would probably also like to regulate smoking in private homes...very sad.

[Publius6961]

That wasn't very nice.
Tobacco smoke clings to everything around it.

Let me tell you a story.
By way of background, I am an engineer, have been a pilot and also an amateur weather enthusiast (among other things).
I notice and monitor things that most normal people don't, like the effect of wind force and direction on my car's mileage...

At an outdoor concert in a park a few years ago, the outdoor seating was almost full. One person at the front near the stage walked across the area smoking a cigarette.

The wind was clearly from the back of the area towards the stage.
An obese woman, from the middle of the seating area, got up, ran all the way, downwind, to the smoker and yelled and abused him for smoking in public and endagering the health of hundreds of people.

You may not be that irrational, but it is only a matter of degree...

[World'sGoneInsane]

Many restaurants now are non-smoking, or you can go into the bar and smoke. If you don't like smoking--go to one of the many that voluntarily ban smoking.

I'll tell you as a smoker that I usually have to wait for a table. The smoking section is usually filled, and I am offered a non-smoking table. It should be up to the restaurant owner whether they want to offer smoking or non-smoking establishments. Restaurants and bars will suffer as a result of this law. It doesn't seem ethical that Atlantic City will be excluded. This is just so New Jersey.

Just as I now choose not to go to the non-smoking establishments, you can choose not go to the smoking establishments. Plain and simple.

[Publius6961]

My guess would be that there are people who oppose smoking because they want to control other people and/or get unhappy whenever the government can't control some aspect of life. They would probably also like to regulate smoking in private homes...very sad.

Thank you. There is a spark of reason there.
Over and over, whenever something reasonable is proposed, such as allowing one in five restaurants to be smoking only, every nut on FR shows up with the refrain, or rather the whine:... but what if I want to eat there?

Do you realize that if reasonable accomodation could be tolerated, we would not be having this discussion?

[gondramB]

"I have friends that can't start their days without a Pepsi. Does that make them drug users???? They are addicted to Pepsi, so I guess you think they too, are druggies."

If they could drink their Pepsi but instead chose to spray caffeine into the air around me, I'd oppose that too.

Whether a drug is legal is doesn't change whether or not its a drug. Now, nicotine and caffeine happen to be the two safest for long term use enjoyable drugs so it is right and proper that they are legal.

But using nicotine by smoking tobacco around people who don't consent is becoming more and more illegal... so that argument what you're doing is legal is going away.

And just to be clear, I totally support the right of adults (and maybe even kids) to use nicotine and the right of adults to smoke, whether or not its harmful to them. I only dispute their right to put it on other people. BTW, I smoke Cigars occasionally - I am not anti-smoking.

[gondramB]

" The wind was clearly from the back of the area towards the stage.
An obese woman, from the middle of the seating area, got up, ran all the way, downwind, to the smoker and yelled and abused him for smoking in public and endagering the health of hundreds of people.

You may not be that irrational, but it is only a matter of degree..."

Because people like that exist, I don't blame smokers for being suspicious of my motives. Discussions like this are important to draw distinctions between an irrational desire for governmental control versus a desire for individual protection.

Besides, we have not even gone to the tough cases... what about kids in the homes of smokers... that's what I don't don't like to talk about because I don't have good answers. or the rights of employees of private clubs.... it can get hairy.

[Publius6961]

Thank you for the information SheLion. But there is a plan coming together in my mind. It will work beautifully only if all states have Freedom of Information laws that they must adhere to, and it also depends on the total number of smokers in the US at present. Not the percentage of smokers, but the number of them.

If only 1% of the smokers are willing to contribute $10 a month to a diabolically clever plan, we can nuke the smoke nazis and the bureaucratic taxing mafia clean out of the water.
Or tie them up procedurally so as not to make a difference.

I do not accept "convenience" or "pragmatism", on the part of the states, as a valid reason to ignore civil rights, rules of evidence or due process...

[SheLion]

If only 1% of the smokers are willing to contribute $10 a month to a diabolically clever plan, we can nuke the smoke nazis and the bureaucratic taxing mafia clean out of the water.
Or tie them up procedurally so as not to make a difference.

I do not accept "convenience" or "pragmatism", on the part of the states, as a valid reason to ignore civil rights, rules of evidence or due process...

I'd be more then willing to donate that every month if we only had a big organization that could make this all come together.  I am sure there are smokers across the United States that never read FR and are still in the dark about the war on the smokers.

But I would be willing to donate.  The hard part would be to gather all the smokers under one Internet roof to start planning.

[gondramB]

"Do you realize that if reasonable accomodation could be tolerated, we would not be having this discussion?"

My favorite steak house has a smoking room - they sell cigars, they have seperate ventilation and they only have smokers work in the room. Anybody that still had a problem with that is a (ok I almost said facist or Nazi and i know better than to exaggerate like that) so let's just say they favor a nanny state that would sap the life out our country.

For me it comes down to consent and assumed risk. Adults should be able to voluntarily assume risk as long it is consensual. We (collectively) had made the decision that public spaces need to accommodate the entire public. that system has flaws but its better than the other choices.