Peggy Noonen: "Them" [one group for whom liberals have no tolerance at all]

Wall Street Journal ^ | Nov 15, 2002 | Peggy Noonen

[The Raven]

There's a lot to think about this week--the rise of Nancy Pelosi, the meaning of the Republican triumph--but my thoughts keep tugging toward a group of people who are abused, ostracized and facing a cold winter. It's not right what we do to them, and we should pay attention.

[iconoclast]

I don't agree with the anti-smoking Nazis

Who you tryin to kid?

[laredo44]

Do I believe workers should not be forced to be around the smokers if they do not want to? yes! However, that is their right

Your fradulent use of words like "forced" and "right" make it difficult to defend liberty.

What workers are "forced" to be around smokers? Precisely what "right" do you cite regarding those workers?

[betty boop]

Modern liberals are not culturally inclined toward courtesy. They are inclined toward knowing what's good for you and passing ordinances to make sure you get the picture. The first Thank You For Not Smoking sign I ever saw was in 1976, on the desk of Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis. I thought: I have seen the future, and it is puritanical.

Puritanical!!! I do believe Peggy Noonan's take on this is truly apt. Massachusetts may be one of the most "progressive" states in the Union. But my guess is it's definitely THE most puritanical. The roots of that run very deep in our flinty soil....

Puritans not only tell you how you ought to live, but they try to make it prohibitively costly for you to choose to live in any other way. Case in point: A pack of cigarettes in Massachusetts these days costs nearly $6 -- because of the ever-escalating state excise tax ....

[borisbob69]

How do you get away with that screen name in such a puritanical place? ;)

[MississippiMan]

Since I quit smoking, I'm infinitely more sensitive to the way it smells. And nope, I don't like it. But her point is right on: it's gone too far. Smokers are now treated like lepers. Try to remember back before all the anti-smoking movement got rolling. Weird how it bothered very few people then, eh? Even non-smokers rarely complained. It was simply no big deal. Since that time, however, there's been an increasing movement to stamp out ANYTHING that might OFFEND anyone. The thinking behind the anti-smoking movement is the SAME behind the PC nonsense that now pervades our lives and our society in such foolish measure. It's the same thinking that now controls the way we fight our wars and protect—or fail to protect—our nation from obvious threats. Be sure you're happy with what you got.

MM

[Sloth]

Does this suffice? I wasn't aware that to NOT be a Health Nazi that one had to LOVE smoking as a habit.

Then you are now. You know how the militant homosexuals demand not merely tolerance of their behavior, but vocal agreement and affirmation of it from everyone on the planet? These militant smokers are exactly the same way. If you do not agree that smoking is a wonderfully productive and healthy activity that everyone should practice & enjoy, then you are labeled as smokerphobic.

You are not allowed to have or express non-conforming views on smoking. Please report to the re-indoctrination center.

[cubreporter]

I meant to say that workers who do not smoke and do not like smoke should NOT be forced (by virture of working in the same area or building or whatever)to be exposed to the smoke that bothers them. Therefore, their rights should be met.

HOWEVER, I support the right of the smoker and think there should be a place for him to exercise his/her rights as well.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Hope this helps.

[KC_for_Freedom]

This is a tough crowd. My wife and I recently moved from California. When we encounter a restaurant or bar with ashtrays, we choose to sit in the smoking section. (to help see this establishment not perish throughout the country.) My wife even fires up occasionally, although not a smoker for the first 50 years of her life. Our take, the evidence points to second hand smoke not being the killer the nazis contend and smokers as a whole are having a lot more fun and living life more fully than the non-smokers.

While I respect that some people are bothered by smoke, if they are, they don't need to eat and drink in the smoking section. This seems like a reasonable compromise.

As far as smoking at work. I believe the set aside ares are working, I would build some areas that are warmer, more comfortable, and protected from the weather so that these valuable employees don't catch health problems and become a burden on the companies health program.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Smokers are filthy beasts who deserve to be ostracized and cast out.

[borisbob69]

Your sophomoric comments prove you to be aptly named.

Most smokers could care less whether non-smokers approve of their choice. What we object to is the anti-smoking nazis who take it upon themselves to punish those of us engaged in a legal pursuit, by restricting it and taxing it to try and force us to comply with their belief system.

[johnny7]

Dude, you could be diabetic; in certain forms of diabetes the sufferer appears to be drunk and has a distinct smell of alcohol about him. This is serious stuff and should be looked into.

I'm going to operate... if I cut off my feet, I should stave it off.

Have a drink for me Junior.

[Sloth]

This and other FR threads prove my point.

[Anoy11_]

What's worse in your opinion. The smell that eminates from some fat slob eat a gyro in the confined office space or smoke? Seriously people that eat smelly food should be forced to eat their smelly food outside.

[Samwise]

You are going to make a lot of people mad if you continue to be reasonable. :)

[Junior]

Have a drink for me Junior.

I'll make it a double. Thanks.

[Marysecretary]

I had to laugh at some of this because two women in our building are always huddled in the cold outdoors when I come in at 9:00 a.m.

On the other hand, I've lost a mother, two young nephews to cancer--all heavy smokers--and now my sister has lung cancer in both lobes. I hate smoking. I hate seeing young kids start because I know what can happen to them later on in life. But, we live in America and people should be free to kill themselves if they choose to. I've never smoked and we don't allow it in our house, but who am I to say that others can't do it if they want to? Just don't do it around me and we're okay. I can't take the smoke because of allergies.

[laredo44]

I meant to say that workers who do not smoke and do not like smoke should NOT be forced (by virture of working in the same area or building or whatever)to be exposed to the smoke that bothers them. Therefore, their rights should be met.

Thank you for your polite reply and efforts to advance the debate. My objection is that the workers are not "forced" to be there at all. They choose, each and every day to voluntarily go there. And every moment they are there is by their own volition as there is nothing preventing them from leaving. They choose to be there and perform certain activities in exchange for a paycheck.

Whether the owners of the company choose ban or require smoking in the workplace is their right and not that of those seeking employment for those seeking employment have the right of liberty. That is, they can choose to work under the conditions provided by that employer or not. Not happy with the conditions offered? Seek conditions to your liking elsewhere, or start your own enterprise and set your conditions.

By arguing that you as employee have a right to set contiditons where you work, you cede the right of private property. I believe that is the destruction of liberty.

[Marysecretary]

farts are better...

[SheLion]

OH YES! I received this twice in email this morning. It's time for lunch. I will be back!

[Marysecretary]

I don't know that I ever told my dad when I was a child not to smoke because I didn't know it was so bad, but when he was choking on his own sputum and eventually died from heart trouble, I wish I had.