If you love liberty, vote NO on this smoking ban poll for business owners

[vechorik]

..................Here's another one:

Your in your home and your sat on the sofa watching a movie and having a smoke when some sort of domestic emergency happens, lets assume a pipe bursts and you need a plumber. You are suppose to provide a smoke free working envoiroment for said plumber.. This essentially means that you can't smoke in your own home for 1 hour before he/she arrives (cus thats the time deemed that the smoke will take to clear) and then until the jobs complete and the plumber leaves..

What we have to understand and realise is that the elites who run our nations have chosen socialism as their preffered method of control...

With "third hand smoke" you won't be able to smoke AT ALL. That's probably the intention of smoke-free America in the first place.
They want to ban cigarettes.
The government won't ban smoking (they want the tax money).

 

[GrahamUK]

With "third hand smoke" you won't be able to smoke AT ALL. That's probably the intention of smoke-free America in the first place.
They want to ban cigarettes.
The government won't ban smoking (they want the tax money).

I've always said if you guys wana see where you headed then look to the UK. Socialism is the way its gona be im afraid, look at how bad things are in Britain, we're 20-30 yrs ahead of you guys, but your gaining on us, FAST.

As for the tax issue... We already pay huge taxes on smoke here, a pack of 20 would prolly cost around 10USD

Another thing their trying to do over here atm is ban smoking while driving, so the police will have the power to pull you over and give you a ticket for smoking in your OWN car, even if your alone!!

Also they are trying to change the retail laws to have shopkeepers sell cigarettes 'under' the counter and from blank packages with NO labels or adverts on em...

P.s.

The smoking ban is a signal of gov't funded healthcare.. reason i say this is that the tax money collected from smokers don't mean a damn thing if the gov't is then paying HUGE amounts providing treatments for lung cancer and other smoking related diseases.. To the gov't its simple math, they dun care about your rights, its all about the money..

 

[phill4paul]

The smoke-free people are arguing "third hand smoke" now. (Google it, you won't believe it.)

You are correct. Just like any advocacy group they cannot achieve an objective and stop there. Otherwise they would cease to exist as an advocacy group.
Like equal rights advocacy groups. The stated goal was equal rights. Once that was achieved it turned into a 'special privilege' advocacy group. Candy Lightner created Mothers Against Drunk Drivers with the sole intent of taking 'recidivists' off roadways. She later left the organization because she said it was taken over by prohibitionists and that was not her intent.
So too will the anti-smoking lobbyists push for 'third hand' residue as a prohibitionist perspective.

 

[SilentBull]

 

[tod evans]

Oh man! What a money maker, outlawing smoking.

Just think of all the people who could be subjected to the "just-us" system.

 

[GrahamUK]

Oh man! What a money maker, outlawing smoking.

Just think of all the people who could be subjected to the "just-us" system.

Check out this link... This is my local council/authority website

The new law affects enclosed or substantially enclosed public places and premises including the work place which are designated "No Smoking Premises". Works vehicles are also included.

You, your staff, customers and visitors are not allowed to smoke within your premises or vehicles. This includes previously designated smoking rooms.

http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/regulation/smokingban/

Thats shows some of the costs and penalties ... You are quite correct, its a money maker indeed

 

[angelatc]

Smoking in the public sphere is not an exercise of liberty.

It's the definition of "public" that is creating havoc. This anti-smoking crap is part of the globalist agenda. In at least South American country, it's now illegal to smoke inside your own house.,

 

[angelatc]

I was asthmatic as a child. At a young age even had to endure being placed upside down on an sloped ironing board for an hour a day. I know, I know, it was what the doctor ordered. LOL. My asthma cleared up the same time as I started smoking tobacco.
Correlation does not equal causation. I'm just saying.

Our air is now cleaner than it has been at any point in the last 100 years, yet asthma and allergies are reaching astronomical levels. (Heck. Maybe second hand smoke prevents austim too!)

 

[angelatc]

Clearly you have lost all connection to reality, so I'll bow out at this point. Have a good afternoon!

Yeah, clearly I'm the one evading the issues using strawmen and hyperbole.

 

[jmdrake]

It's the definition of "public" that is creating havoc. This anti-smoking crap is part of the globalist agenda. In at least South American country, it's now illegal to smoke inside your own house.,

In at least one place in the U.S. there is such a ban. I remember reading a story about that here at RPF a few years ago but can't find it now. In the meantime here is a proposed ban on smoking in a private home "if the public is served".

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2011/sep/07/8/pendleton-leaders-discuss-proposed-smoking-law-ar-2281479/

So having an in home accounting business means you give up your rights.

 

[GrahamUK]

In at least one place in the U.S. there is such a ban. I remember reading a story about that here at RPF a few years ago but can't find it now. In the meantime here is a proposed ban on smoking in a private home "if the public is served".

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2011/sep/07/8/pendleton-leaders-discuss-proposed-smoking-law-ar-2281479/

So having an in home accounting business means you give up your rights.

Yep, thats how the law is in Britain.. You also have to pay to put no smoking signs everywhere..

 

[jmdrake]

Museum of Science. Aquarium. Theatre. etc.

ah....but as Libertarians, we would banish the existence of such things, no? They would all be privately owned.

I'm not sure if I'm following your argument (Tod). Do you think that no privately owned museums, aquariums or theatres would try to cater to a public that's increasingly hostile to smoking? I know that hotels did. I remember the last time I checked into a hotel that allowed smoking. Actually I was checking my parents in. The smell of smoke was so bad that none of us could stand it and we had to go to a different hotel. All of the non-smoking rooms were taken. So the market was already punishing those who allowed smoking.

Still, for the life of me I don't understand why nobody ever considers smokeless ashtrays and electronic cigarettes as a compromise solution. As I am not a libertarian, I wouldn't be against a local ordinance that, rather than banning smoking, required facilities open to the general public (not private homes that have small businesses) to have smokeless ashtrays if they allow smoking. Take away the libertarian card that I don't have for saying that. If bars can be required to have smoke alarms and sprinkler systems for public safety, why not smokeless ashtrays? No I'm not convinced by the "smoking is really healthy for you" research, even if that research qualifies itself by saying "only organic cigarettes with no additives are healthy for you". But regardless, say if smoking isn't dangerous? Why would it hurt to have the smoke safely go into a smokeless ashtray? And if smoking is really dangerous, wouldn't a smokeless ashtray get rid of 90% of the potential damages from secondhand smoke? And electronic cigarettes would end 100% of any potential danger.

 

[jmdrake]

Our air is now cleaner than it has been at any point in the last 100 years, yet asthma and allergies are reaching astronomical levels. (Heck. Maybe second hand smoke prevents austim too!)

Thanks to 24 hour cable, video games and the internet children spend more time indoors than ever before. In even the most polluted cities in the worst years for pollution indoor pollution was generally worse than outdoor pollution. Plus sunlight itself kills a lot of germs. We're raising a generation of vampires.

 

[phill4paul]

Still, for the life of me I don't understand why nobody ever considers smokeless ashtrays and electronic cigarettes as a compromise solution.

Because smokeless ashtrays do not adequately cover smoking. It does not allow for expulsion of leftover smoke. Electronic cigs just DO NOT compare. I actually tried them and made two months.
However, there are AMAZING air scrubbers. They actually lift all the smoke up and put it through a filter system. A bar in town actually spent $1 million on it less than a year before the ban. Worked great. A year later that was $1 million that went for naught in an attempt to accommodate everyone. Of course they weren't a part of the big-box restaurant lobby.

 

[jmdrake]

Because smokeless ashtrays do not adequately cover smoking. It does not allow for expulsion of leftover smoke. Electronic cigs just DO NOT compare. I actually tried them and made two months.
However, there are AMAZING air scrubbers. They actually lift all the smoke up and put it through a filter system. A bar in town actually spent $1 million on it less than a year before the ban. Worked great. A year later that was $1 million that went for naught in an attempt to accommodate everyone. Of course they weren't a part of the big-box restaurant lobby.

Hmmmm....okay. I'm not a smoker so I have no idea what works and what doesn't. That sucks about that restaurant. They should have been allowed to at least test their system under the ban. Would the increase in business from smokers offset the cost of the system? But alas our "one size fits all" government doesn't allow for that.

Side note, I've been to one of those "hookah" bars and while there was a smell it wasn't noxious or overwhelming like going to a typical bar where people light up with cigarettes has been for me. I don't know if this is because the smoke is being filtered through water or if it's pure tobacco or if the little fruit pieces they put up top makes the difference.

AquaBuddha baby!

 

[donnay]

I'm not sure if I'm following your argument (Tod). Do you think that no privately owned museums, aquariums or theatres would try to cater to a public that's increasingly hostile to smoking? I know that hotels did. I remember the last time I checked into a hotel that allowed smoking. Actually I was checking my parents in. The smell of smoke was so bad that none of us could stand it and we had to go to a different hotel. All of the non-smoking rooms were taken. So the market was already punishing those who allowed smoking.

Still, for the life of me I don't understand why nobody ever considers smokeless ashtrays and electronic cigarettes as a compromise solution. As I am not a libertarian, I wouldn't be against a local ordinance that, rather than banning smoking, required facilities open to the general public (not private homes that have small businesses) to have smokeless ashtrays if they allow smoking. Take away the libertarian card that I don't have for saying that. If bars can be required to have smoke alarms and sprinkler systems for public safety, why not smokeless ashtrays? No I'm not convinced by the "smoking is really healthy for you" research, even if that research qualifies itself by saying "only organic cigarettes with no additives are healthy for you". But regardless, say if smoking isn't dangerous? Why would it hurt to have the smoke safely go into a smokeless ashtray? And if smoking is really dangerous, wouldn't a smokeless ashtray get rid of 90% of the potential damages from secondhand smoke? And electronic cigarettes would end 100% of any potential danger.

So let me ask you this-- why is there a push to ban E-cigarettes then? It's because of sheer ignorance. Because people have been conditioned, let's face it. It is the knee-jerk reactions and the genuflecting to authorities and how tyranny is so often allowed in because of the ignorance.

Federal regulators to formally ban e-cigarette use on planes
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/...rmally-ban-e-cigarette-use-on-planes/142656/1

E-Cigarette Ban Under Consideration In NY
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/24/e-cigarette-ban-under-consideration-in-new-york-state/

San Francisco considers banning e-cigarettes
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8089763

Boston Bans E-Cigarettes in Workplaces, Just Because
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/02/boston-bans-e-cigarettes-in-workplaces-f


So go right ahead, drink you FDA approved aspartame drinks. Go ahead take those FDA vaccines. Go out to dinner and eat that food laced with FDA approved MSG. And don't forget to drink lots and lots of FDA approved sodium fluoridated water. Because government cares about your health!

 

[phill4paul]

Would the increase in business from smokers offset the cost of the system? But alas our "one size fits all" government doesn't allow for that.

A testament to their business acumen they were able to eat a million dollar loss. But, yeah, they 'banked' on creating an atmosphere for smokers and non-smokers alike. They were pretty pissed that as dues paying members of the Rest. Ass. they weren't informed on the pushed changes.

Side note, I've been to one of those "hookah" bars and while there was a smell it wasn't noxious or overwhelming like going to a typical bar where people light up with cigarettes has been for me. I don't know if this is because the smoke is being filtered through water or if it's pure tobacco or if the little fruit pieces they put up top makes the difference.
AquaBuddha baby!

Yeah hookah is a different creature entirely.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Meh, my grandfather lived well into his nineties. Smoked hand rolled every day. Filterless. Would that I could live so long and be active and coherent till the end.

My grandfather, 96, up to three packs a day of B and H.

 

[phill4paul]

My grandfather, 96, up to three packs a day of B and H.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Danke]

My grandfather, 96, up to three packs a day of B and H.

Is he related to that bad-ass Smedley Butler?