Smoking vs. drinking
Now the do-gooders, politicians and legislators seek to outlaw smoking in casinos...bravo! Meanwhile, players can imbibe free alcholic beverages if they so choose, get in their vehicles and go careening down the mountain. But not to worry...the public will not be endangered by second-hand smoke if the latest and most foolish bill passes thanks to the self-appointed guardians of public safety.
It is a good bill for me, forcing me to leave my favorite machine and go outside to smoke every now and then. Consumes time, no doubt saves me money while giving me the feeling I am saving some non smokers life. Point being...second hand smoke can be dangerous but so can second hand alchol.
This letter has not been edited.
Sounds like Anderson and Bill Johnson need to hook up to smoke a few packs of unfiltered Camels and have a bitch session.
Posted by QBT on May 6, 2007 01:15 AMThere is just no fighting this one, Anderson.
It's all about liberal CONTROL!
"Do this, don't do that. Can't you read the sign?"
Although liberal lefties won't lift a finger to further their own endearing causes other than writing checks, they do like to impose their wills on everyone - free of charge.
Just be thankful that they are still drinkers. As soon as they decide on sobriety personally is the day sobriety will be forced upon you!
Such a Brave New World!
Posted by LB on May 6, 2007 06:32 AMM. Anderson,
I am quite libertarian and have sympathy for your perspective.
Your comparison to drinking is not apt however, since drinking and driving is illegal and so is abusing your family.
The last two paragraphs add nothing and serve only to undermine your point.
The reality for smokers is that their numbers are dwindling. As the hazards have become known and the resulting health education campaigns have sunk in, it has become socially unacceptable to smoke anywhere you want. The laws are merely byproducts of this larger shift in cocietal norms. Be thankful they're playing out at the local level where at least you have a fair chance to affect the outcome.
I quit smoking almost 20 years ago and still consider it the best thing I've ever done for my health.
Since you're banging your head against a brick wall of inevitablility here, why not try quitting?
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 06:38 AMDamn, should've spell checked...
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 06:40 AMWikipedia definition:
"Libertainism - Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property."
It failed to list the exceptions, i.e...
Except for the owners of bars who want to allow smoking, and the individual smokers who want to patronize those smoking bars?
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 06:49 AMLets just outlaw everything.
Posted by FW on May 6, 2007 06:56 AMOh we will...remember the Democrats are back!
If Rosie,Susan Sarandon,Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, and especially Jihad Jane Fonda tell me to quit anything I will just do it!
It's getting there, FW.
Soon! Very Soon!
Wikipedia definition:
"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."
I believe this socialism definition more aptly explains how our socio-economic system can control what individual business property owners can and can not do on their properties. Outlawing smoking inside their individual properties, for example.
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 07:06 AMNot only that, those who indulge too much in alcohol tend to ignore the condition of their cars and that can lead to increased emissions of carbon monoxide, a much more deadly constituent of environmental air than second hand smoke. But wait, the anti smoking crowd has said it is alright for carbon monoxide to be spread profusely within the air we breath. Why? Well because it is necessary to their greed driven need to make money. Now let's think about that for a minute.
The Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act, according to the intent of the obscure language the legislators used when writing the law, was enacted to protect nonsmokers and employees from the insidious and deadly second hand smoke they just may choose to expose themselves to if they enter a hospitality business that allows smoking now and then but, it is just fine and dandy if they are exposed to carbon monoxide on a regular basis as it creeps in under the doors and through the walls of there houses and apartments and as they go about their everyday lives at work and play.
Also, as everyone knows, second hand smoke goes through a miraculous transformation when it is exhaled in airport lounges, cigar bars, businesses that employ three or less people and is not open to the public and, curiously, only 25% of hotel rooms. I don't know why the dangerous and deadly second hand smoke goes through a transmutation rendering second hand smoke benign in only 25% of hotel rooms but, if the legislature says its's so, who am I to disagree. Scientists are unable to explain this but, the anti smoking people say, by exemption, that it must be true otherwise the legislators would have included such places in the ban and that explanation should be accepted because it comes from an unarguable source that has been proven to never have told a lie.
Yes Sir, not only are the legislators endowed with superior, super human wisdom but are also so righteous and up standing in the eyes of God they have been granted a miracle which allows exemptions for their favorite watering holes.
Who are we that we can question the will of God and the legislature. We hospitality business owners should be humbled by such brilliance and devine intervention and, we should be glad that we were smote by the legislature out of existence rather that visited by the wrath of God for questioning his miraculous intervention on the part
of his chosen few.
The Statute was enacted by a Republican dominated Legislatre, and signed into law by a Republican Governor
So of course, since Republicans never have been, and never are, responsible for anything, put all the blame on the Democrats.
And of course, never mind other ways of destroying our freedoms, such as the Patriot Act, wiretapping of American citizens without Court Order, Stripping away of Habeus Corpus whenever the Political Police grab someone who is SUSPECTED of being "sympathetic" to terrorism, or any cause that Bushites might label as such. Just blame Clinton for all that, He must have "made it necessary".
Pots and Kettles yammering away at each other What else is new and exciting?
Posted by on May 6, 2007 07:49 AMThat House Bill says quote - "HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE TO PROTECT NONSMOKERS FROM INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE IN MOST INDOOR AREAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC MEETINGS, FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS,
AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT. "
Did you notice that House Bill states "protect nonsmokers from involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke"?
Every non-smoker I saw in bars were there on their own free will voluntarily. Every worker in smoking bars voluntarily accepted employment in that smoking establishment. In fact, I can't think of one non-smoker forced into a smoking environment or establishment, without voluntarily doing so.
You would think, in a Free Society, there could be both smoking and non-smoking establishments. Oh, but we forgot to throw in the liberal left who enjoys imposing there will on everyone. Again, socialism defined.
Posted by LB on May 6, 2007 08:07 AMI tried to tell you it's about devine intervention. Why would anyone one question God's will as defined by tobacco control advocates? Everyone knows they are incapable of telling anything but the truth.
Posted by Allen Campbell on May 6, 2007 08:18 AMASIDE:
It's unfortunate for 40 million aborted babies that the liberal left's devine intervention doesn't infringe upon the rights of women.
Guess God has given the socialistic left the omniscient freedoms to pick and choose which of society's rights may or may not be abolished in order to maintain their own personal lifestyles.
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 08:49 AMCome on guys, don't you think that liberal Alphas should have their superior minds protected from second-hand smoke toxins? Geez...
Posted by No use on May 6, 2007 08:51 AMWell, Charles B, I have always said ex smokers are the worst, and you just proved it.
Obviously, with quitting smoking, you took on saint hood, and now sit in judgement on us lesser mortals still partaking of the weed.
You appear to have also risen above the field of reality, believing that laws that make drinking and abuse illegal prevent it.
If only that were so.
If you will take my smoke laden fingers and step down from Mount Olympus for a moment I will take you through the real world of today, where there are still lots of smokers,
healthy and happy like me, who see through the smoke to the reality that government has never and will never care a jot about our health, but will use any means to control us in every nook and cranny of our lives, helped by people like you who have been blinded by the probing search lights used to seek out possible areas untouched before.
If I am wrong, and you are merely mortal like us, please tell me why we couldn't still have our own places to smoke. The choice was there when you quit;think how you would have felt if public smoking had been banned while you still lit up. That was the day when you could light up anywhere, why not allow us to light up somewhere.
They've criminalized smoking, made wearing seatbelts mandatory and a criminal offense not to wear in Texas. It's okay to be pro gay, but if you want a sound family ideal, you"ll soon be charged with a hate crime for suggesting that homosexuality is wrong. You'll soon be seeing laws about energy. Owens was a closet liberal period.
Allowing governement to continue regulating your personal choices only makes their goal of a complete socialist state even closer. WRITE your representatives. Creating laws that strip us of our choices in life is the beginning of the end of the freedoms our ancestors and our great nation fought for. The no smoking law was just openning the door for the salvo of regulation that will come under the guise of "global warming" , "hate crime" "public health" "separation of church and state ideals" So...until we stop electing globalists, socialist and elitists who feel that the common man can't make his own decisions...we are well on the way to a state run society.
the issues that need addressing are illegal immigration and less government control of our lives....VOTE REPUBLICAN--less government, less taxes, more freedoms, and no enabling of the system soakers.
Charles B. Just what hazzards are you talking about and what authority are you citing. It is always the way of tobacco control advocates to cite education and dangers as a reason for passing laws but, they never seem to be aware of the time honored acceptance of protecting freedom of choice and private property. Are you so enlightened by not smoking for twenty years that you have greater wisdom than the founding fathers and the men who fought and died for these freedoms that you think they should be ignored in favor of your personal preferences.
Posted by Allen Campbell on May 6, 2007 09:15 AMI thought liberals didn't like having someone elses morality shoved down their throats. Who woulda thought?
Posted by KW on May 6, 2007 09:31 AMThe only way second hand alcohol would be dnagerous would be to drown in someone elses vomit.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 6, 2007 09:33 AMCharles B. How do you spellcheck on thie method?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 6, 2007 09:35 AMAnother case of forcing one's will upon another. Non-smokers should not have that right! Smokers choose to smoke. Smokers are more considerate than non-smokers. If you don't want second hand smoke, don't go where people smoke. It's a non-smoker's choice that is not being forced upon (them).
Posted by VLT on May 6, 2007 09:55 AM"The only way second hand alcohol would be dnagerous would be to drown in someone elses vomit."
Or to have someone drunkenly run you over, but good thinking there.
Posted by No use on May 6, 2007 10:05 AMSharon B Quote:
"The only way second hand alcohol would be dangerous would be to drown in someone elses vomit."
Let's investigate the negative second hand impact on society:
increase in child abuse
increase in assaults
increase in murder
increased domestic violence
date rape
rape
robbery
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse:
"Estimated losses attributable to alcohol problems of $13.6 billion include vehicle and roadway damage, legal and court costs, and insurance administration"
... and
"About $66.8 billion (45 percent) is borne by abusers, but an even greater shareÑ $81.2 billionÑis borne by nonabusers. Alcohol abusers may bear less of the cost than this, because they, too, shift effects to household members."
The negative second hand consequences of alcohol consumption are by far more extensive and wide ranging than second hand smoke.
But, once more the socialistic left do not want laws interfering or infringing upon their own personal lifestyles. Predictable...just like a broken record.
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 10:48 AMIt's been funny to watch the smokers whine like babies. At least venues let you go out to smoke, they wouldn't let me out for air........
Posted by on May 6, 2007 10:48 AMyou weren't forced to go to those venues to begin with, you begger whiner.
and I know there was never one venue that ever forbid you from going outside for air...
Posted by on May 6, 2007 10:53 AMActually, I feel sorry for anti smokers, who are now labelled ANTIS. What miserable lives they must lead to devote so much time to having their own way. Referring to smokers as whiny babies when they respond like spiteful children is rather amusing.It's my turn, is a strange response coming from an adult. Meanwhile, both smoking AND non smoking citizens are trying to restore the balance a democracy deserves.
Posted by Diana Reid on May 6, 2007 12:01 PMFor all those who are blaming the smoking ban on "liberals, socialists and lefties," might I remind you, as an earlier poster did, that this ban was enacted by a Republican dominated legislature and signed into law by a Republican governor.
Okay, back to your liberal blaming now.
Posted by on May 6, 2007 01:17 PMAnyone who really thinks the Republican Party stands for small government anymore hasn't been paying attention. If you really want small government, vote Libertarian. If you just want to use the small government myth to get votes, come out and be honest about the authoritarian hellhole you want to turn American into.
Posted by on May 6, 2007 02:07 PM"For all those who are blaming the smoking ban on "liberals, socialists and lefties," might I remind you, as an earlier poster did, that this ban was enacted by a Republican dominated legislature and signed into law by a Republican governor.
Okay, back to your liberal blaming now. "
Maybe you should check the votes on the ban. A few Republicans sold out, but the ban was largely enacted by Democratic votes.
Posted by No use on May 6, 2007 04:17 PMDiana Reid,
"Well, Charles B, I have always said ex smokers are the worst, and you just proved it.
Obviously, with quitting smoking, you took on saint hood, and now sit in judgement on us lesser mortals still partaking of the weed."
You must not have read my post. The first thing I said is that I am libertarian about such things. As such I don't support laws banning smoking.
I was merely pointing out the inevitability of such laws being enacted. Since I'm a non (tobacco) smoker, I could really care less.
Smoke away Diana.
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 05:11 PMAllen Cambell,
"Charles B. Just what hazzards are you talking about and what authority are you citing."
Try reading the side of the package Allen...
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 05:13 PMSharon B.
I type it into this: http://www.spellcheck.net/
Sometimes if I have blogger open I use that. Then you can add simple tags as well.
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 05:18 PM"Try reading the side of the package Allen..."
Gosh Darn It, you're right Charles B.
It doesn't say a word about second hand smoke.
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 05:42 PM"Maybe you should check the votes on the ban. A few Republicans sold out, but the ban was largely enacted by Democratic votes."
Along with the big money and lobbying from the secret "socialist party".
And republican and democrat alike have deserted the people. Attempting to grant amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants is proof positive that republicans are more concerned with financing big business through the tax burdens placed upon average citizens, and the democrats could care less about American citizens as long as they increase what they see as a vast increase in poor working-class votes.
There is no longer any group that protects the interests and rights of the average Joe. So neither party is going to protect individual rights.
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 05:58 PMDS blathered:
"Gosh Darn It, you're right Charles B.
It doesn't say a word about second hand smoke."
Here was what I said:
"The reality for smokers is that their numbers are dwindling. As the hazards have become known and the resulting health education campaigns have sunk in, it has become socially unacceptable to smoke anywhere you want."
Then Allen asked "what hazards", and I told him "read the package".
There was never any mention of "second hand" smoke, you just made that up so you could take your pathetic little impotent swipe.
Try reading before opening your gaping maw.
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 06:13 PMUnfortunately, Charles B,
The whole argument for the Legislative Act in question is based upon the "hazards" to be encountered with "second hand smoke".
Cigarette packages carry various random notices concerning those "hazards".which are supposed to be there in the smoking of tobacco.
Now, why would it be illogical to expect - if there truly were a "hazard", as great as that claimed in the Act, to be had from "second hand smoke" - that the FDA, and the rest of the educational health campaigns, would also put this information on a cigarette package by way of warning?
DS merely pointed out an anomaly, one that has occurred to many others as well when attempting to deal with the matter.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 6, 2007 07:03 PMCharles B.
I was not trying to take a swipe. But since your quote was "the hazards have become known", I surmised that Allen's question "what hazards" was referring to second hand smoke. For it is second hand smoke alone which has caused the termination of rights.
Posted by on May 6, 2007 07:20 PMTo heck with cigarettes and liquor! Time we legalized the smoking of POT! I've never heard of some guy getting stoned and going home to beat the wife and kids. You'll never find some stoned citizen driving 100mph, you'd be lucky to see one drive over 20mph! Alcohol makes a lot of people aggresive, pot smoking just makes them stupid and kind of funny. Cigarettes? That's a social class issue. Rich successful type don't smoke as a rule although there is a lot of puffing going on down in the trailer park. Could be that someone just wants to exert a little more control over others. Personally, I don't smoke and rarely drink (I wonder why I am having my kitchen remodeled this week to build in a wine cooler) go figure. I really don't care. If you want to smoke, light em up! But the drinking? Well, Please don't drive. I won't worry about what the pot smokers are doing because it won't be much at all, if they can focus long enough to get to the fridge they'll be lucky.
Posted by Harry on May 6, 2007 07:29 PMwhen you throw your smoke out of your car window onto dry grass you have just endangered someones person and property. With all the information about smoking only a dumass would continue, I quit many years ago due to information. Keep up on your health insurance (not medicare.) I dont want to have to pay for your long term illness. Theres a reason people jump away from you when you try to talk to them, "Ya STINK Man, hear of mouthwash?"
Posted by mae on May 6, 2007 07:39 PMThat's funny, Harry.
And interesting you bring up pot smoking while we've been debating the abolition of citizen rights.
Take, for example, the citizens of Denver voting to legalize less than an oz of marijuana. But Denver law enforcement is instructed to apprehend regardless of city law due to state law superceding city law.
The city's allowance of pitbull dogs, however, supercedes the state law banning the breed. Legislators seem to just do whatever they please. Maybe they should smoke more pot. They must already own pitbulls.
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 07:42 PMscratch that pitbull story. guess state law did after all win through by allowing the ban in Denver
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 07:50 PMMae,
When your merely driving your car you are endangering someones person and property - some drivers more so than others.
And as far as the smell... Birds of a feather flock together.
Too bad nonsmokers wouldn't just stay the flock away from smoking establishments.
Posted by LB on May 6, 2007 07:55 PMOG etc.
I was merely pointing out why I thought the laws were inevitable, despite my oposition to them.
I think that once it became clear to the general public that smoking was hazardous to their health they made an intuitive leap and concluded second-hand smoke was dangerous. I never suggested that the conclusion was correct.
I've never studied the second-hand smoke issue.
If anything, take issue with the fact that I don't care about or advocate for smokers rights. I admit that much.
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 08:04 PMI appreciate your honesty Charles B.
I quit smoking in 2004 and am arguing, not so much for smokers rights per se, but for rights in general.
It is just wrong for government to have the freedom to control every facet of one's life. No longer is it just on a personal level either. Now they can even dictate business practices to entrepreneurs.
And, like you, I have not studied the effects of second hand smoke. But since Colorado, California and other states have deemed it a workplace hazard, how soon will the federal Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) be held liable for the decade they failed to protect American workers from the "known" life threatening effects of second hand smoke. If it was a known fact, would not the federal watchdog on workers health stepped in sooner?
It might be a larger law suit than the settlements upon big tobacco.
Posted by DS on May 6, 2007 08:25 PMThe only arguments that support indoor smoking are weak.
Smoking is a personal choice and a very unhealthy habit. Even if secondhand smoke doesn't cause physical damage to people, it certainly annoys many -- especially those with asthma and allergies.
I've heard the "private property rights" arguments a million times from smokers -- but unless you're a bar owner, you really have nothing to gripe about. And if you are a bar owner, obeying the laws is one of those hassles that goes along with operating a business that provides public accomodations.
Look at it this way -- smokers have always had choices when it comes to socializing. You could smoke or not smoke, indoors or outdoors. Non-smokers never had any real choice other than go out and endure the smokers or stay home alone.
There is no smoking BAN, it's only a RESTRICTION. Go outside and smoke all you like. The fresh air might do you some good, and it will definitely do some good for people who don't like to be around smoke.
Posted by Intellius on May 6, 2007 09:37 PM"Non-smokers never had any real choice other than go out and endure the smokers or stay home alone."
Boohoo. Or you could go to one of the establishments that was smokefree prior to the ban, like the Larimer Lounge, and enjoy smoke free air. I don't smoke, and I never found allowing cigarettes to be anywhere near the annoyance that some of the nannies on this board cry about. If I didn't want to breathe smoke, I didn't go to smoking bars, and I sure as hell didn't cry like a little girl with a skinned knee about those inconsiderate smokers that partake in their own establishment that I am in no way obligated to frequent. Nobody in this country wants to take any responsibility for their choices anymore, grow up people, and let the barowners, and those they allow into their establishments, to make their own adult choices.
Posted by No use on May 6, 2007 09:47 PM"Look at it this way -- smokers have always had choices when it comes to socializing. You could smoke or not smoke, indoors or outdoors. Non-smokers never had any real choice other than go out and endure the smokers or stay home alone."
It is unfair either way. You used to have to endure the smokers, now smokers have to endure the nonsmokers. Now, smokers either go somewhere they don't like or stay at home alone.
When I was a smoker, I would not enter a nonsmoking establishment. I didn't like it!
Why, as a nonsmoker, did you enter a smoking establishment when you didn't like it?
Why can't smokers have their places, and nonsmokers have other places? Why did you have to go to places you didn't like and, worse, eliminate them?
Posted by LB on May 6, 2007 09:52 PMAhhh,the debate goes on......Any time a society is stressed,scapegoats emerge. Since religion,race,and gender orientation fall under the rubric of diversity,they can no longer be used.Smoking has been elected the sin du jour,and those who partake are the new pariahs.Anyone who's been reading the numerous threads on this issue must notice that the pros generally offer reasonable compromise,in the apparent belief that the government means what it says about liberty and justice for all.The antis generally respond with a venomous melange of the worst of Jim Crow,National Socialism,and the Sharia. The bullying has gone on for a long time,and the severity of the payback will depend on how well the public and the government bring extremist antis to heel.
Posted by Jimminy on May 7, 2007 12:11 AMThe ANTIS should move to France where they can tell those people how to live.
Oh No! Too late! Even the French finally got smart enough to kick out the Socialists.
Posted by on May 7, 2007 05:36 AM05:36:
"Oh No! Too late! Even the French finally got smart enough to kick out the Socialists."
And one of the first things the new conservative leader did is call on George Bush to embrace the fight against global warming.
Take note psuedo-conservatives. Real conservatives thing conservation is a good thing...
Posted by Charles B on May 7, 2007 07:40 AMSpell-check too.
Posted by Jimminy on May 7, 2007 08:57 AMJust a reminder. Smoking causes cancer and other serious diseases, not only in the smoker but in those around the smoker.
Posted by Truth on May 7, 2007 09:41 AMAnother reminder-government is not required to tell the truth.
Posted by Jimminy on May 7, 2007 09:47 AMYet another reminder. By taking yourself out of the equation and going to a non smoking bar, you no longer have anything to complain about.
Posted by Larry on May 7, 2007 09:56 AM"Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act" - House Bill 06-1175
Signed by Republican Governor Bill Owens on March 27, 2006.
Prime House Sponsor - Rep. Mike May, Republican
Senate Prime Sponsor - Sen. Dan Grossman, Democrat
On the question, shall the bill pass?
House 3rd reading Vote: (out of 65 Reps)
Republicans - yes - 16
no - 16
Democrats - yes - 25
no - 8
Senate 3rd reading Vote: (out of 35 Senators)
Republicans - yes - 3
no - 14
Democrats - yes - 18
no - 0
Just so all you idiots don't let name calling and finger-pointing get in the way of the facts....here are the actual votes. The PRIME SPONSOR in the House was an R and the Governor, also an R, signed the damn thing. Both houses were controlled by the D's at the time. So for everyone screaming about nanny-state liberals, as you can see, the Republicans had just as much of a hand in passing this "big-government intrusion" - in fact, a Republican sponsored the bill in one of the chambers.
Instead of pretending to know what the bills are about, who voted which way, etc., how about taking some time to actually look up the FACTS? And maybe actually READ the text of the bills? You can look this all up on the CO General Assembly website at any time, you know....
Posted by Betty on May 7, 2007 10:11 AMWhat a refreshing thread FINALLY a few freedom loving people show up and give socialists like Charles B. and Sharon B. a glance from the "other side"concerning restrictions of freedom in the American Citizens life.
Sharon B. ALWAYS manages to write something gross and disgusting to divert and tone down the thread from the real issue being discussed.
Their mindset seems to be..... we should sabotage any one who posts sensible thoughts concerning individual freedoms.
They make sure they outnumber and blast anyone who does not agree with their socialist views. Is this a socialist trick or what?? Did they attend classes named "Socialism 101 How to Covert Anyone!"
I am a non-smoker. I quit 11 years ago. Most everyone in my immediate family still smoke. It is their choice!! I respect that!!!
Posted by A on May 7, 2007 10:13 AMT:
"What a refreshing thread FINALLY a few freedom loving people show up and give socialists like Charles B. and Sharon B. a glance from the "other side"concerning restrictions of freedom in the American Citizens life."
What examples can you give where I urged a restriction on anyone's freedom?
As for your "socialist" schtict, you seem to not understand that socialism is a reality throughout our system of self-governance. Everything your taxes pay for from roads, to food-stamps is "socialism". I understand that your wish is to stigmatize the term much like "liberal". You are transparent.
You also seem to have a paranoid view of what goes on in this forum.
I don't know Sharon B. any more than you do, and "we" are not conspiring to "outnumber" anyone.
Open the blinds and let the sunshine in T!
Posted by Charles B on May 7, 2007 11:01 AMThe education that is talked about by tobacco control advocates is written, designed and paid for by Big Pharmaceutical companies, like Johnson and Johnson and their sponsor The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It pays to know where the "EDUCATION" comes from. Remember the propaganda that spawned the nightmare called Naziism? That was called education too.
Posted by Allen Campbell on May 7, 2007 11:03 AMSince smoking is legal, but not allowed in all places, that make for some unique laws. When the need to breath comes up against the wall of need to smoke, someone has to lose.
With cigarets, there are two types of smoke, that which comes off of the burning cigarete, which may be first or second hand, and that which is exhaled after going through the smokers lungs, that is definately second hand.
Breathers dislike both kinds, but the burning end smoke is the worst. For every puff a smoker inhales, the guy next to him gets as much smoke .
Now comes the private property issue. This is where smokers and their supporters hang their arguements.
Private property that is only private is your home, car etc. Private property open to the public is one of those unique areas of law that has to balance the owners rights and the publics rights. No sollution will make everyone happy.
Smoking ban forums have more side issues, abortion ,the Iraq war ,then any other I have seen.
These forums also have more heat then light (pun intended) but tons of emotion, mostly anger and frustration from the anti-ban group.
Just go into any one and count the adjectives used. Haul out the venometer and see how high it goes.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 7, 2007 12:24 PM"No sollution will make everyone happy."
No, but the solution should not be one that costs people their livelihood. Have you noticed that not one person who is affected by the ban in a way that doesn't involve personal choice is in favor of it? You can choose to go to a bar or not, or choose to work their or not, but you can't just undo a mortgage that you took out to buy the property. The property owners are the only individuals involved that really deserve to have a vote on the issue, everyone else should either put up or shut up.
Posted by No use for a name on May 7, 2007 12:54 PMLiberalism and socialism are, by definition, exact opposites.
Socialists wish for a socio-economic system where private property and wealth distribution is controlled by the collective community.
Liberals historically want freedom of individual rights, limitations on governmental control, free private enterprise, and equal rights under the law.
Either of these systems, as well as communism and pure democracies, can pay for the needs of its society's communal necessities such as roads, schools, hospitals, etc.
Taking away individual and free enterprise rights, however, has become predictable from present day liberals - thus the mistaken mirrored identity of socialism.
As far as which party voted for what... Who cares! Both parties protect only their own special interests, not ours. The only time either even try to appease its public is just before an election.
Posted by LB on May 7, 2007 05:57 PMNo use for a name. I was not aware that you had been financially hurt by this ban, that you are a bar property owner.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 7, 2007 09:08 PMSharon, again with putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about personally being affected by the ban, I am not a bar owner. Of course, I wasn't affected by the lack of a ban either, I have always had the ability to choose which bars to go to since I have been of legal age. My point was that I haven't read about one bar owner who favors the ban, and in my opinion, they are the voices that should count on this issue.
Posted by No use for a name on May 8, 2007 07:40 AMbut on this forum, NUFAM, you make it sound as if no one but bar owners has any right to post. I hate first hand smoke, the stuff that comes right off the lit end. I also quit smoking
and I did not see anywhere that Charles B. acted like he wants sainthood for being in favor of the ban.
It take an enormous amount of guts for a smoking-ban supporter to even venture into this forum.
Hyperbole is fine but should be lilke nuts in a cake, added for flavor, not the whole thing.
Smokers go into hyperbole over this , more then almost anything else posted.
I didn`t put words in your mouth, I infered from what you wrote that the rest of us could just shut off the computers and go play cards, since our votes should not count.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 8, 2007 12:46 PMI respect you Sharon, but I just can't for the life of me figure out why you would be in favor of something that takes away from other people. With all of the smoking AND non smoking bars that were out there before the ban, why would you keep going into a place that you know to be toxic and bad for your health? The bar owners have the most to lose, so why shouldn't they get to have a say in what happens on their property? So you hate first hand smoke, then why were you around it so often? It's not because of the lack of options.
Posted by Larry on May 8, 2007 01:12 PM"It takes an enormous amount of guts for a smoking-ban supporter to even venture into this forum." Well,maybe-if the antis are convinced us pros are hacking the RMN website,and obtaining their info in preparation for organizing mob action.
Posted by Jimminy on May 8, 2007 01:15 PMJimminy, bring the pitchforks when you organize the villagers, but leave the burning torches at home. no smoke please.
I don`t go into bars, but people have to work there and please don`t say "just go work somewhere else" . That is such an easy dismissal of those people.
In lots of small towns in Colorado, there were no non-smoking bars. Restaurants yes, bars no.
So who fought the hardest for this ban, maybe it was bar owners, patrons ,and workers who actually wanted clean air.
It takes guts to even say "I like going into bars where I can breath now". Even something an inofensive as that will get back posts-from-hell nasty responses.
Bet in a years time this will all shake down into a working compromise, some new ideas will prevail
Now it` just a fight over power and control. Non-smokers, or as I call them, breathers have the power and control. Maybe that will last, maybe not.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 8, 2007 01:36 PMBut unfortunately those same people who you want to protect, smoke themselves. It does take guts to say you "can actually go into bars and breathe now", but it takes even more guts to say "I know there was a non smoking establishment right down the street, but I wanted to go into this one". If you are in any kind of business you know that you cannot please all the people all the time. And since the vast majority of people who went into bars smoked, the owner has every incentive to cater to the larger customer base. That's fine that in small towns most bars were smoking, but that's where the freedom to choose what places you give business to comes in. You could either go drink in a non smoking restaurant, or go into a smoking bar. The choice was yours and everybody elses, but you didn't like the fact that you could chose for yourself, and so you didn't want anybody else to have that choice either? Yes, it is just going outside to light up, but think about what would happen when you did that. You would lose your seat at the bar, you would lose your pool table, you would be robbed if you wanted to let everybody else know that you were there but stepped outside for a minute. There was nothing you could do in a smoking bar that you couldn't do in a non smoking restaurant even. So I just don't understand why you called foul when you made the choice to ignore non smoking establishments and go to the smoking ones where you would have something at all to dislike.
Posted by Larry on May 8, 2007 01:55 PMHope all the "you" in that was generic. This isn`t personal to me, I like smoke free restaurants, all the bar stuff pleases others.
However, your picture of the smoker who is afraid to leave the bar and go outside is hillarious.
I do wonder how a drinker makes sure the drink stays on the bar while they are gone?
There realy is an element of humor in this, but smokers are so up-tight that they are spitting mad.
As soon as casinos go smoke-free I will spend my gambling money in Colorado, not NV.
New casinos are almost smoke free because of the size and air filters. Could we have learned something from that?
Don`t care about smokers health. A nanny state would outlaw cigs like pot. Or follow you home and take your cigs away.
I have heard all the arguements, and the private property one makes the most sense, but smokers didn`t care two beans about pp before this issue. At least the ones I know.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 8, 2007 02:58 PMThen you obviously don't know many people.
Posted by Larry on May 9, 2007 07:44 AM