Health Care: Smoking ban!

[deanne]

Same here. If someone wants to unwind in a pool hall by lighting up after a hard day at work, I can keep my distance. I might smoke in moderation, myself (Sometimes I'll buy a pack, smoke one or two cigarettes out of it a week, and eventually give the rest away to a hardcore smoker knowing I'll never finish the pack). I personally feel that this country had a sort of 'film noir' when smoking was allowed in public areas just a few decades ago . . . call me crazy, but the cigarette butts in the urinals just whispered 'freedom' to me - everything from the haze in the bar room to tune of "As time goes by" played via piano in the background. I also believe that by trying our hardest to outlaw cigarettes, we've successfully re-created that rebellious allure that made cigarettes so fascinating in the first place.

Note to whom it may concern: I know it's bad for my health, so don't expect a rousing debate out of me. As Ron Paul is a medically-oriented man, he would probably not suggest anyone pick up the habit, but his stance on marijuana makes me assume he would not interfere with tobacco use (and especially because the Constitution doesn't allow the fed to regulate it).

Drew Carey can express this much better than I can: http://reason.tv/video/show/160.html

"cigarette butts in the urinals" and a "film-noir" atmosphere..

I think that's a pretty eloquent depiction of freedom; I couldn't agree more, and I don't smoke.

 

[freelance]

Ron Paul stands for protecting all innocents and a smoke ban would improve the protection of all innocents both born and unborn. What do you think?

I think NO!

Oh, and did I mention that I now prepare restaurant-quality meals at home now JUST SO I can enjoy a cigarette with my wine. I'm not ABOUT to patronize eateries anymore since the smoking ban went into effect. I realize that they did not institute the smoking ban, but they could band together and stop it if they wanted to, or they could turn themselves into private clubs--whatever.

There's your free market at work.

 

[FreeTraveler]

If the Federal government wants to regulate smoking, they'll need to pass an amendment. Plain and simple. Until then, it can butt (no pun intended) out and leave it to the states to decide.

Oh, yeah? Then how come they didn't need an Amendment to outlaw pot?

 

[PennCustom4RP]

Oh, yeah? Then how come they didn't need an Amendment to outlaw pot?

Because they just did it, usurped the authority of the Constitution, and this is what makes drug prohibition laws unconstitutional. At least when the Govt. prohibited alcohol, they had the decency to do it lawfully via a Constitutional amendment, and made it legal again via another amendment...this is how it is supposed to be done.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Currently...it is against the law in Washington State to smoike even Outside, if it is within 20 feet of the entrance to a public building. There is no smoking in ANY public place, even nightclubs.
This goes to property rights and rights of business owners. If they want to be able to allow smoking, they should be able to. If they want to refuse smoking, they should be able to do that too. Then as a customer I would have a choice on where to go based on my preferences. But Noooooo....the Government thinks they should be able to dictate what is best for us. The choices of us as citizens are getting smaller and smaller.

 

[devslashnull]

Ron Paul stands for protecting all innocents and a smoke ban would improve the protection of all innocents both born and unborn. What do you think?

You do not have to enter an establishment or enclosed space that permits smoking.

 

[Zolah]

I voted for a ban on manufacturing all tobacco products, just from my viewpoint of the damage smoking does. I also appreciate recent laws introduced here in the UK to ban smoking in enclosed spaces, etc. It's not that I want to oppose on civil liberties, right now people have the right to spend their money on tobacco and that's fine, but I wish that generations down the line much much less people will be smokers.

I'm also against legalisation of cannabis, I have nothing against people who smoke or possess cannabis but I've seen what it can do to people, and wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

 

[brandon]

I voted for a ban on manufacturing all tobacco products, just from my viewpoint of the damage smoking does. I also appreciate recent laws introduced here in the UK to ban smoking in enclosed spaces, etc. It's not that I want to oppose on civil liberties, right now people have the right to spend their money on tobacco and that's fine, but I wish that generations down the line much much less people will be smokers.

I'm also against legalisation of cannabis, I have nothing against people who smoke or possess cannabis but I've seen what it can do to people, and wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

God lord, you have no clue what this freedom movement is about. What next, should the federal government outlaw the manufacturing, selling and consumption of foods that have saturated fat content? Should the federal goverment outlaw driving for non-essential purposes because it increases the risk of harm? Should the government outlaw swimming for 30 minutes after eating?

 

[Carl Corey]

I have nothing against people who smoke or possess cannabis but I've seen what it can do to people, and wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

Yeah, they get stoned, it's horrible.

 

[QWE]

We talked about this in my econ class recently. People usually associate smoking with negative externalities (second-hand smoke), but actually those costs are extremely small compared to the positive externalities from smoking. Because people smoke they pay tax on cigarettes, plus they pay social security while the work. Smokers live shorter lives. Because of this, they don't get nearly as much social security as they pay in - so if you want to benefit others, smoke! You'll die sooner and others who stay alive with benefit from the social security you paid!
From a purely economic standpoint, smoking is a great thing. Heh.

That being said I think all drugs should be legal.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Oh, yeah? Then how come they didn't need an Amendment to outlaw pot?

Because they just did it, usurped the authority of the Constitution, and this is what makes drug prohibition laws unconstitutional. At least when the Govt. prohibited alcohol, they had the decency to do it lawfully via a Constitutional amendment, and made it legal again via another amendment...this is how it is supposed to be done.

That guy answered it for me. ^^^

Edit: I might also add that having to pass an amendment theoretically should cause congress to really think twice on something before they just go around making laws. Making amendments isn't supposed to be easy to do, because if it were, the laws which would come about as a result of those amendments would change so often you and I would be sharing a jail cell right now, because for example let's suppose something that was legal two weeks ago wasn't legal earlier this week when we did it.

Remember that 2/3 in favor are needed in both houses to make an amendment pass. Only a majority (over 50%) in both houses is needed to pass a bill into law (provided the president signs it, of course, if he vetoes the bill, it becomes harder to pass, but not impossible).

 

[familydog]

This issue isn't black and white. The reason is that smoking doesn't just affect one person, it affects everyone around that person. While you have the freedom to smoke, doesn't someone else have the freedom not be bothered by it? If we look at the libertarian philosophy, it's pretty straight forward. You have the right to do whatever you want so long as you don't harm me or my property or infringe upon my rights. In the case of smoking, smokers do harm other people even if they don't mean to. That is to say unless you think smoking does not actually cause harm to people.

Does the free market principle of choosing places that don't allow smoking instead of places that do overide the fact that smoking harms everyone around the smoker? I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

 

[nobody's_hero]

If we look at the libertarian philosophy, it's pretty straight forward. You have the right to do whatever you want so long as you don't harm me or my property or infringe upon my rights. In the case of smoking, smokers do harm other people even if they don't mean to. That is to say unless you think smoking does not actually cause harm to people.

Does the free market principle of choosing places that don't allow smoking instead of places that do overide the fact that smoking harms everyone around the smoker? I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Well, I'm playing the devil's advocate, and I really have spent more time in this thread than I ever intended, and I myself am "just asking" . . .

But, suppose you go into another citizen's private business and demand that he kick out all of the smokers and provide you a smoke free environment, wouldn't that be an infringement of the rights of the establishment's owner, if not including all of the smoking patrons as well?

My opinion is that the issue was plenty 'black and white' until we asked the government to step in and take control, and now it's all 'faded and blurry.' Typical government work, no doubt.

 

[misterbig]

- The smoking ban should be up to the states and not the federal government.

- Smoking should not be allowed in enclosed public places, or enclosed areas with full or partial funding from taxpayers.

- If a business wants to allow smoking inside its premises then they have the right.

- Consequently, if health insurance companies want to deny coverage or raise premiums for smokers, they have the right as well (as they do currently).

 

[Iowa4Paul]

Ron Paul stands for protecting all innocents and a smoke ban would improve the protection of all innocents both born and unborn. What do you think?

...It's not a federal issue. You sound like a democrat...

Feel-goody laws for stuff like this is what got us where we are in the first place. The gov should not tell people how to live/be moral, etc...

If smoking were banned, then they should ban unhealthy diets...or ban people from being lazy...

 

[Antialiased]

This issue isn't black and white. The reason is that smoking doesn't just affect one person, it affects everyone around that person. While you have the freedom to smoke, doesn't someone else have the freedom not be bothered by it? If we look at the libertarian philosophy, it's pretty straight forward. You have the right to do whatever you want so long as you don't harm me or my property or infringe upon my rights. In the case of smoking, smokers do harm other people even if they don't mean to. That is to say unless you think smoking does not actually cause harm to people.

Does the free market principle of choosing places that don't allow smoking instead of places that do overide the fact that smoking harms everyone around the smoker? I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

True on the libertarian philosophy. However, I doubt any libertarian would argue that people have a right not to be bothered in public. Hell, perfume and cologne drive me crazy. So do stupid people. Does that mean I should be able to tell people that they can't enter ANY public place while wearing perfume or that they must remain silent if their IQs are below 125? I don't think so. However, if I owned a restaurant/store/etc, I should have every right to exclude anyone I want AND INVERSELY I should be able to allow anyone I want.

Now, if people are actually harmed - not simply bothered - by secondhand smoke and they did not choose to be subjected to secondhand smoke, I have no problem with them using our courts to seek redress.

Personally, I think that the best solution would be to post a disclaimer&warning at the entrance of any building that allows smoking (or perfume ^_^)

 

[familydog]

Well, I'm playing the devil's advocate, and I really have spent more time in this thread than I ever intended, and I myself am "just asking" . . .

But, suppose you go into another citizen's private business and demand that he kick out all of the smokers and provide you a smoke free environment, wouldn't that be an infringement of the rights of the establishment's owner, if not including all of the smoking patrons as well?

My opinion is that the issue was plenty 'black and white' until we asked the government to step in and take control, and now it's all 'faded and blurry.' Typical government work, no doubt.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think that's a key point here. The only thing I was confused about was how something like that went with the libertarian philosophy that I described. Unless I'm just messing up libertariansim here (entirely possbile as I consider myself more "conservative" than "libertarian"), but isn't it a legitimate role of government to step in and prevent my neighbor from harming me? Just wondering how the free market thing goes with this view?

 

[losinglife]

dont even get me started on the assholes that think there should be a smoking ban.... and this is coming from a non-smoker.

 

[familydog]

True on the libertarian philosophy. However, I doubt any libertarian would argue that people have a right not to be bothered in public. Hell, perfume and cologne drive me crazy. So do stupid people. Does that mean I should be able to tell people that they can't enter ANY public place while wearing perfume or that they must remain silent if their IQs are below 125? I don't think so. However, if I owned a restaurant/store/etc, I should have every right to exclude anyone I want AND INVERSELY I should be able to allow anyone I want.

Now, if people are actually harmed - not simply bothered - by secondhand smoke and they did not choose to be subjected to secondhand smoke, I have no problem with them using our courts to seek redress.

Personally, I think that the best solution would be to post a disclaimer&warning at the entrance of any building that allows smoking (or perfume ^_^)

Good point. I would make a distinction between perfume and secondhand smoke though like you pointed out because one is harmful, the other annoying.

 

[Mckarnin]

Note (This poll is about your opinion in smoking ban in general regardless if it is on the government level or the state level)
What is the position of Ron Paul regarding this issue?
Does this fit under the property rights or it goes against it?
And could smoking ban play a role in protecting all innocents (children born & unborn) ?
What national smoking ban means? Does is it refer to banning the manufacturing of tobacco products or it refers to banning smoking in closed and public areas?
And what is the difference between the situation here and there in the UK where the smoking ban is active in Public and closed places since the mid of 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6258034.stm

Adult Cigarette Smoking in the United States: Current Estimates
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/adult_cig_smoking.htm

The only person with a right to ban smoking is the property owner. So, whoever owns the property can dictate whether smoking is allowed...home owner, state government in their own buildings, restaurant owner, etc...