Health Care: Smoking ban!

[Brian4Liberty]

That said, the point is that if you ban smoking, it won't be limited to that alone. People will demand for the banning of many, many other things that they disagree with, and without the principle of letting people decide for themselves, arguments against further banning won't have much choice.

The ban already exists in many States, and most smokers even like it once they experience it.

Banning of many things?! Isn't that all that our law is about? We already have that problem.

The banning of some things is reasonable. This isn't the banning of smoking or smokers. It is the banning of one person forcing smoke into another person's lungs. That is a pretty basic and clear boundary, and central to libertarian ideals.

"rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" - Thomas Jefferson

"Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others"

http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm

 

[Loke]

The ban already exists in many States, and most smokers even like it once they experience it.

Banning of many things?! Isn't that all that our law is about? We already have that problem.

The banning of some things is reasonable. This isn't the banning of smoking or smokers. It is the banning of one person forcing smoke into another person's lungs. That is a pretty basic and clear boundary, and central to libertarian ideals.

"rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" - Thomas Jefferson

"Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others"

http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm

You are totally wrong. This isn't about smoke going into other people's lungs. There is bans going on in some places(like where I live) where you can't even smoke on certain property. They have been talking about banning smoking in outside public places and the whole uptown area.
Kinda funny with all the car exhaust streaming by and the smoke boiling out of the factory smoke stacks.
It's about how alcohol is treated as it can be sold but if it's drank anywhere in public it's treated like a crime.
A man can't drink a beer while walking down the street and a whole lot of other places. An officer of the law can walk up and give you a public intoxication charge with no proof you've even drank alcohol.
They do NOT have to give you a breathalyser. In fact if you ask for one they will deny you one.
There is no recourse of action for this matter either. Because it is within the law for them to use discretion .
I see the same thing happening with smokers. You can NOT say you believe in liberty and support this.
Ban in government offices and places under 18.. okay. Children shouldn't have to breath the shit. But to dictate to business that cater to adults is wrong.
It should be up to the business as I said in my other post.
In that scenario it would be alright with me if every business went 'no smoking'. But it should be their right to choose.

 

[Loke]

I'm a non smoker.

However, I have smoked a good cigar on certain special occasion (on my wedding day, when my niece was born), and the thought of not being able to bust one out for a special celebration with some of my friends just seems to fly in the face of what is great about being an American -- and yes, I am respectful to the fact that I'm not the only one around, and being conscious that I'm not smoking around anyone who would be bothered by it.

That said, the point is that if you ban smoking, it won't be limited to that alone. People will demand for the banning of many, many other things that they disagree with, and without the principle of letting people decide for themselves, arguments against further banning won't have much choice.

Right! There has also been an ongoing debate on banning how pants are worn.
i.e. The kids wearing their pants hanging half off there ass. Claims it incites gang activity etc..,
I think these kids look really stupid like this. But to make a law prohibiting this type of fashion blows my mind.

ANYTIME you say "There should be a law" you just say take away more freedom!
And when you are talking non criminal activity you are walking on shaky ground!!!
People Love to tell other people what to do. That is as long as it doesn't touch their choices. It's good to tell people they aren't allowed to smoke and drink or wear their clothes ways the look ignorant. But let them tell you it is forbidden/against the law to eat chips and hotdogs and watch people cry.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You guys can walk down the street naked, drinking whiskey and smoking that cigar for all I care.

But you can't force me to drink the whiskey, take off my clothes or inhale the smoke.

I am not for more laws. But there are reasonable laws, and those are mainly about you infringing upon others life, liberty and property.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" - Thomas Jefferson

 

[riner69er]

As a matter of principle, I am against anything like a smoking ban.

But I have to tell you, we have a smoking ban here in Ohio now, and it is really nice to be able to go to the bar every now and then and not come home REEKING of smoke. So personally, I love it.

I have tried to argue that blowing smoke into the air (everyone's free air) is a violation of my personal rights, but I am not sure that argument holds much water. The argument I get is - you can move if you don't want to breath in my second hand smoke.

My reply - So if you were doing heroin next to me and some of your heroin got into my body (somehow, whatever, don't analyze it, just go with it) it wouldn't be a violation of my rights?? Wold it be ok if everyone within a 20 foot radius of me was high on heroin while I was shooting up? I kind of doubt it. and I also doubt the idea of - hey, if you dont want to get high on heroin, then dont come near me while I'm using it - would hold up in that case either.

thoughts?

 

[nobody's_hero]

As a matter of principle, I am against anything like a smoking ban.

But I have to tell you, we have a smoking ban here in Ohio now, and it is really nice to be able to go to the bar every now and then and not come home REEKING of smoke. So personally, I love it.

Well, I hope you don't like all-American cheeseburgers or real ice cream, because those could be next on the list of things the government wants to ban.

Maybe the government starts thinking we're spending to much time on the computer and getting lazy, so by law we have to exercise everyday for an hour.

These are good decisions for an individual to make on his or her own accord, but throw the government into the works and suddenly I think the ideas just suck. Suddenly I want that tripple whopper dripping fat off of the sides and a Coke so huge it will have me peeing all night. I want to slouch on my couch and watch M*A*S*H reruns while getting up only to snag a beer from the fridge. Heroin, um, I think I'll pass. But you get the general idea on why we can't just ask the government to ban smoking and hope they won't snoop around until they find something else they can "help" us get rid of.

 

[theczar1776]

pointless, absurd, asinine, ridiculous, futile, a waste of time.
instead of talking about SMOKING BANS go canvasing.

 

[jumpyg1258]

Smoking is just the latest addition to the War on Drugs. After they completely ban tobacco, they will go after alcohol again.

 

[theczar1776]

a ban would be dumb do you know how much tax there is on a pack of cigarettes

 

[Madcat455]

Well, I hope you don't like all-American cheeseburgers or real ice cream, because those could be next on the list of things the government wants to ban.

Maybe the government starts thinking we're spending to much time on the computer and getting lazy, so by law we have to exercise everyday for an hour.

Your cheeseburger theory does not apply... as ME eating a cheeseburger doesn't make YOU fat.

I don't know how the ban happened in every state, but... Once again... FL put it to a populous vote to have the CONSTITUTION amended to incorperate the ban... It wasn't the big, bad, gov. forcing their anti smoking agenda on the smokers... but the OVERWHELMING number of NON smokers that are SICK AND TIRED of having to breath the CRAP that smokers spew from their lungs.

The POPULATION spoke and passed the amendment. For once, the system worked like it is supposed to.

GOD I love FL!!!!

 

[Knightskye]

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?

Ron Paul stands for the Constitution. The 10th Amendment would leave smoking up to the states.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Your cheeseburger theory does not apply... as ME eating a cheeseburger doesn't make YOU fat.

That wasn't the point. The point is that once the government starts deciding what is bad for people, it may not know where to draw a line. Certain things that perhaps you enjoy may become outlawed, and what do you do then? You've already given the government the 'green light' to start banning things. My guess is that when cigarettes are completely outlawed (I do believe we are approaching that), the government will be back in the same predicament as it was in when alcohol was prohibited.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

LOL! Reading through this, it just occurred to me that people are debating two entirely different things on this thread:

1 - Banning smoking/cigarettes completely, like prohibition on alcohol.
2 - Banning smoking in enclosed public spaces, as many State have already done.


I bet that everyone here thinks that idea 1 (prohibition) is a bad idea...

 

[alexpasch]

Did it ever occur to you to not walk right behind the person smoking?

You obviously don't get it. The person that snorts coke is more likely to commit dangerous acts against others than a smoker is...so should we regulate them? Should we ban alcohol because some people chose to drink and drive? Alcohol has killed far more innocent bystanders than second-hand smoke.

Smokers are not forcing you to share in their addiction, you're being retarded to be perfectly frank.

Either you believe people can regulate themselves or you don't.

I'm personally for it... simply because smokers refuse to regulate themselves.


If you want to do it..that's fine with me.

If you want to snort Coke.. fine, just don't throw the powder on me as I walk by.

Drink alcohol.. FINE, just don't splash me with it

I am SICK AND TIRED of having to walk through a smokers cloud because they're walking infront of me.

The BEST thing that Florida did was a state wide BAN on smoking in food areas.


If they found a way to make it so the Second hand smoke wasn't harmful, and didn't smell like ass... then I'd have a different position.

Until then, I look at it as if smokers are FORCING me to participate in their addiction. God help the person who intentionally blows smoke at me or my kids...

 

[Madcat455]

Did it ever occur to you to not walk right behind the person smoking?

You obviously don't get it. The person that snorts coke is more likely to commit dangerous acts against others than a smoker is...so should we regulate them? Should we ban alcohol because some people chose to drink and drive? Alcohol has killed far more innocent bystanders than second-hand smoke.

Smokers are not forcing you to share in their addiction, you're being retarded to be perfectly frank.

Either you believe people can regulate themselves or you don't.

LOL... you know... I had a whole rant typed up, getting ready to submit it. Then I realised that this must be a sarcastic post... As no person could possibly be that dumb to just type what you did and be serious.

Nice!! you almost had me

 

[Sauron]

God help the person who intentionally blows smoke at me or my kids...

I'll do it. What would you do about it? Just enjoy the enriching nourishment your lungs get, that's all.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Deja Vous, did you vote?

 

[Pepsi]

I am sure they well start using Global Warming as an excuse to ban smoking.

 

[TheTyke]

That's an interesting concept. His stance on pollution and global warming is that although the federal government should play little role in regulation, we don't have the right to pollute our neighbors air, water, etc. If that's true could that be applied to smoking in public places? That is, if you believe smoking is actually harmful.

The point is people voluntarily choose to go onto someone else's property. Therefore it's not "their air." The rules should be set by whoever owns the property... if they allow smoking, or ban it, that's fine. Letting the government tell them though, is giving it control of their property... basically against the Kentucky State Constitution.

Now "public property," as in government owned land, a ban might be acceptable. Who sets policies for government property if not the elected officials?

That said, I'm not enthusiastic about government owning property... they own way too much, for all kinds of lame excuses.

So generally, smoking bans are bad. Even though I don't smoke, and never will (unless set on fire.)

 

[Barackistan]

If you don't like smelling like smoke when you go to nightclubs or bars, don't go to nightclubs or bars. I'm a smoker, and here in the state of Illinois, you get lambasted for smoking cigarettes.

I am automatically a bad-ass or a punk just because I roll my own. Plus I don't mind smelling like smoke -- I can always wash my clothes afterwards. BTW, prior to the smoking ban here in Illinois, there were non-smoking and smoking areas in restaurants, and I never saw a customer being upset with myself or others just because we lit up at the dinner table.

Instead, I get weird looks and people pretending to cough when I am within breathing distance. I would much rather have them say "Please move" rather than cough like they're going to die if they inhale a bit of smoke.

And smoking bans are ONLY up to the property owner (this has been rehashed ad nauseum). Anyone who accepts a ban just for the sake of personal convenience is not an advocate of freedom. (And it seems many of you are.)